chest: db's vs bb? poll

[SerbMarko]

why does tunen bring religion into the mix all the time?

 

[Line]

why does tunen bring religion into the mix all the time?

You saw his references to religion and took it as an attack on it (and yes, I realize Tunen is not religious at all and has been on the offensive before). All he's saying is that personal beliefs and mythology can't hold a candle to science when it comes to strength training and hypertrophy. To me it seems that those claiming DBs give them better separation and fullness really need to step back and do some more definitive research and testing (even if it's amongst themselves) before making claims that disagree with numerous scientifically controlled experiments. There are so many factors that can occur when a person is self-experimenting over the course of something like 6 months; a test of one person isn't reliable as is (here come the "oh, it worked for me" arguments) and without any type of detailed protocol there are innumerable variables that will skew the results.

As for some of the comments Pumba has made trying to prove his theories, things like, "Remember, the Earth was flat once" is irrelevant because that was something that could not be observed during that time while changes in muscle fibers on a cellular level can. Sighting Milos doesn't really impress me either. Unlike any other sport, bodybuilding seems unwilling to make a shift from initial, theoretical practices to one that's more scientifically grounded (except when it comes to drugs, and to an extent nutrition), thus selling many of its participants short. All other sports have used advances in scientific findings to better performance yet we only develop supplements, drugs, and fancy pressing machines that aren't nearly as beneficial as basic exercises. This whole "everyone's different" phase has to die out sometimes soon. Yes, we are all different but that doesn't mean completely different training approaches based on 40 year old assumptions are correct either.

 

[Tunen]

Serb>> I actually mistook PUMBA for BigBen My bad! Generally I was thinking mostly about "belief" as opposed to science though.

PUMBA>> Milos Sarcev, Jay Cutler, And Ronnie Coleman DVDs are just not valid references in my book. This is where we differ in opponion.

You having trained with pros doesn't logically verify anything either IMO. Again, we differ in oppinion

In regard to the using, you've used and I haven't. You have attained lots of mass through chemically enhancing your proteine synthesis which is a major short-cut. You might never have attained that kind of mass naturally dude. So your being heavier than me still doesn't make you more right. You entering a tested competition really doesn't change anything... You're still not natural and can't really compare yourself to clean athletes. You made a choice once and that's it. Each to his own. I'm not against using per se as I love bodybuilding. Just to make that clear

And how can you say I'm ALL books? I've trained in lots of different ways throughout the years and have found that the scientifically verified principles bring me far better gains than the Weider principles or FLEX dogma in general.

Line>> I do don't I

 

[fallen]

I use both but prefer DB's because i am tall and have long arms an the locked position on BB is harder on my elbows than DB

 

[tim290280]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jornT
Perhaps your n=1 experiment could be a bit biased?

Seriously though, Tunen's making a much, much stronger case here.

Agreed. LOL at the n=1 statement.

"Remember, the Earth was flat once" is irrelevant because that was something that could not be observed during that time

Actually interestingly enough they could. Astronomers, navigators, etc all had worked out rough estimates of the actual circumference of the Earth with reasonable accuracy. This was back before the advent of "the world is flat" religious dogma that had tourturous burnings of those who went against it.

 

[Glex]

I repped Pumba because some things work better for different people. Who's to say that some people don't grow better by using DBs? I know we've all mostly got the same principles underlying how our body works, but there are some freaks out there.

 

[Line]

Actually interestingly enough they could. Astronomers, navigators, etc all had worked out rough estimates of the actual circumference of the Earth with reasonable accuracy. This was back before the advent of "the world is flat" religious dogma that had tourturous burnings of those who went against it.

You're such a nerd

Actually I recall a bit of what you're saying. My dad was a earth science teacher (dirt and air he called it) and he did lecture on early astronomers and such.

I repped Pumba because some things work better for different people. Who's to say that some people don't grow better by using DBs? I know we've all mostly got the same principles underlying how our body works, but there are some freaks out there.

The issue became less about growth and more about how a greater ROM or the versatility of DBs allows for greater muscle separation and fullness which there is no merit to.

 

[Glex]

So why do DBs period, then? What advantages does DB press have over BB press?

 

[tim290280]

So why do DBs period, then? What advantages does DB press have over BB press?

BB: Greater ROM (normal grip), higher loading, greater growth potential, less "natural" movement, harder to activily recruit pectoralis in anterior deltoid dominant lifters, easier to manage heavier weights.

DB: Shorter ROM (except in wide grips, which is potential harmfull to the shoulder capsule), lower loading, smaller growth potential, better involvement of proprioception, better activation of stabilising muscles, easier to recruit pectorialis, allows for more "natural" movement patterns, harder to manage heavier weights.

These are short lists.

Ultimately BB's are superior, but shouldn't be used exclusively year round. Certain cycles should be encouraging the use of DB's, especially when not training for maximum strength.

 

[Glex]

Ultimately BB's are superior, but shouldn't be used exclusively year round. Certain cycles should be encouraging the use of DB's, especially when not training for maximum strength.

That's what I was looking for.

 

[Scoular]

size and stimulation = db's

strength training = bb.

For me personally anyway



Powerlifter's need to stick with bb year round whereas bodybuilders dont

 

[PUMBA]

To me it seems that those claiming DBs give them better separation and fullness really need to step back and do some more definitive research and testing (even if it's amongst themselves) before making claims that disagree with numerous scientifically controlled experiments.

So how many more years must I train before I am able to say what works for me???...and where are these numerous controlled studies, you two have mentioned them, where are they?

There are so many factors that can occur when a person is self-experimenting over the course of something like 6 months; a test of one person isn't reliable as is (here come the "oh, it worked for me" arguments) and without any type of detailed protocol there are innumerable variables that will skew the results.
I agree but I am not the only one to feel this way, so what exact number of people do you want??

As for some of the comments Pumba has made trying to prove his theories, things like, "Remember, the Earth was flat once" is irrelevant because that was something that could not be observed during that time while changes in muscle fibers on a cellular level can.
I was pointing out that so called expert opinion can be proven wrong by a practical event. In other words people can sit on thier asses and tell other people "this is how it is" or they can get off thier ass and do it. I prefer the later.

Sighting Milos doesn't really impress me either.
I am amazed at guys that have not competed, not made a succesful living from BB, but go against some one that HAS just because Milos disagrees with geeks in white coats. absolutaly amazing

Unlike any other sport, bodybuilding seems unwilling to make a shift from initial, theoretical practices to one that's more scientifically grounded (except when it comes to drugs, and to an extent nutrition), thus selling many of its participants short.
If it ain't broke don't try and fix it, when you had guys the size of Arnold back in the 70's obviously the training methods were already working, only the drugs and the nutrition had the "most" room for improvement.

All other sports have used advances in scientific findings to better performance
No they haven't, most of them have used drugs as well, swimming, cycling, sprinting, boxing, Olympic lifting, all codes of football have used drugs to get the edge and improve times and performance......even Archers use Beta Blockers to slow their heart rates.

yet we only develop supplements, drugs, and fancy pressing machines that aren't nearly as beneficial as basic exercises. This whole "everyone's different" phase has to die out sometimes soon. Yes, we are all different but that doesn't mean completely different training approaches based on 40 year old assumptions are correct either.
To me 40 yrs of shit that has worked, is far better then some guy trying to get his name out there in a world where every wants to be the next GURU of bodybuilding and have a theory on what works. Yet go to any prison like the ones I worked in and you will see guys that know fuck all, and are huge from lifting heavy weights and eating as much as they can........doesn't seem like you need to be a scientist to me.

TUNEN- as for your theory on my mass coming from artificial sources, sorry bro, I have been stocky and big since age 13, I was benching 200lbs at age 16-17 and weighed around 85kg at 17 for my first amatuar title fight in boxing and by 21 weighed 92kg for my first kickboxing fight.

Yes I did 2 cycles of Deca with a bit of Test to get over some Rugby Union injuries (dislocated shoulder and busted up right knee) which I was put on by a coach and finished with absolutaly "NO PCT" I knew nothing about gear !!!

I then didn't touch weights again till 2005 after spending a week in hospital after being hurt in a work place incident (got cracked by a guy with a fire extinguisher) I have slowly built my self up bigger then ever with heavy weights, good rest and shit loads of food.

So it ain't gear bro, the way I train works for me and has worked with every training partner I have had. You can try and detract from my achievement by crying foul cause I once cycled back in 1999, but that is probably the most pathetic and ignorant statement I have read yet.
The comp I am entering, is with the NEW WNBF who test via Urine, or polygraph and test "EVERY" athlete, I think this speaks volumes.

At the end of the day I am not the one who claimed everyone who believes point A is rediculous, which is basically what you and a few others have done.

I simply answered the poll, and said "Hey this is what I believe worked for me"!

I find it nothing more then concieted behaviour if any of you down grade some one elses experience and achievement just because your books say it is not possible, there have been alot of these so called experts that years later have been proven totally wrong.

....and all this talk about studies and proven theories. Where are they, I have heard both you and Line talk about studies and produced no sources...:edunno: No need to post them for my benefit

Anyway you guys do what you want and good luck with it, and I'll see how I go with my way.

JORNT: Your nothing to me but a pencil neck, put up or shut.
Trusting your knowledge on training would be like useing an accountant that sleeps on a park bench. That's right pointless
Why would anyone listen to some little boy that reads alot.

Jerry Springer Comment for the Day- If I am so wrong why is the poll count 23 - 10 at present in my favour. Take care of yourself.....and each other.

 

[big_duuude]

I ticked DB's.
Though I'm use BB on heavy day and DB's on light day.
I tried it the other way around and both days suffered !!!
In the past I've gained width,thickness and strength on heavy DB's but I really want BB ego boost right now.

 

[Scoular]

PUMBA they wouldn't have the resources or funds to test 'EVERY' athlete despite what they claim. That's all i wanted to say.

 

[jornT]

TUNEN- as for your theory on my mass coming from artificial sources, sorry bro, I have been stocky and big since age 13, I was benching 200lbs at age 16-17 and weighed around 85kg at 17 for my first amatuar title fight in boxing and by 21 weighed 92kg for my first kickboxing fight.

Yes I did 2 cycles of Deca with a bit of Test to get over some Rugby Union injuries (dislocated shoulder and busted up right knee) which I was put on by a coach and finished with absolutaly "NO PCT" I knew nothing about gear !!!

I then didn't touch weights again till 2005 after spending a week in hospital after being hurt in a work place incident (got cracked by a guy with a fire extinguisher) I have slowly built my self up bigger then ever with heavy weights, good rest and shit loads of food.

So it ain't gear bro, the way I train works for me and has worked with every training partner I have had. You can try and detract from my achievement by crying foul cause I once cycled back in 1999, but that is probably the most pathetic and ignorant statement I have read yet.
The comp I am entering, is with the NEW WNBF who test via Urine, or polygraph and test "EVERY" athlete, I think this speaks volumes.

At the end of the day I am not the one who claimed everyone who believes point A is rediculous, which is basically what you and a few others have done.

I simply answered the poll, and said "Hey this is what I believe worked for me"!

I find it nothing more then concieted behaviour if any of you down grade some one elses experience and achievement just because your books say it is not possible, there have been alot of these so called experts that years later have been proven totally wrong.

....and all this talk about studies and proven theories. Where are they, I have heard both you and Line talk about studies and produced no sources...:edunno: No need to post them for my benefit

Anyway you guys do what you want and good luck with it, and I'll see how I go with my way.

JORNT: Your nothing to me but a pencil neck, put up or shut.
Trusting your knowledge on training would be like useing an accountant that sleeps on a park bench. That's right pointless
Why would anyone listen to some little boy that reads alot.

Jerry Springer Comment for the Day- If I am so wrong why is the poll count 23 - 10 at present in my favour. Take care of yourself.....and each other.

a) You claim you have suck great genetics....perhaps you grow no matter what you do? You're the kind of guy who says to a guy who increased his bench from 100 to 400 hahaha ik bench 450 (with a starting weight was 400), you're a noob, you know nothing. Brutal logic

b) I knew nothing of gear, cry cry cry. Born stupid and learned nothing new.

c) You say we make claims but give no sources, yet and 3 lines after that you make claims that so called experts are proven wrong...yet give no sources/examples yourself...epic self owning.I posted so many studies here and even more back on bbd and you think we can't come up with sources? The simple reasons I don't do it everytime, is because 95% of the people don't understand it anyway. If someone asked for references after a claim, I never failed to back it up once.

d) yeah yeah, I'm a pencil neck. Haha that means much from a morbidly obese guy I'm not trying to be a bodybuilder, and this is hard to understand for you, but not everyone wants to step on stage in a posing trunks for a day, while the rest of is live is walking around in an environment of evenly retarded people who try to put your lights out.

e) You stole that jerry springer comment from me, and the fact that people agree with you doesn't make you right. No one believed me the guy who said the earth was round.

f) How is Big Cat, your friend? hahahahahahahaha

g) Are you a IFBB pro yet?

h) It's just self defense guys, he started, I'm just better at it.

 

[Tunen]

PUMBA dude...

No one is trying to take ANYTHING away from you. Where did you get that impression? No one is claiming that following dogmas doesn't produce results. Training like you do yourself can produce magnificent results. That other methods are better verified doesn't necessarily have to have an effect on your training. Some of us choose the scientific path and some of us don't...

The problem is, that you guys seem to present these dogma in a way that makes inexperienced lifters interpret them as truth. And you refer to people that have drastically altered chemical profiles which makes any following argument invalid...

Hence, your arguments stand weak from a scientific pov. Perhaps you would care to explain how DBs, stretching and massaging hightens "seperation"? (do you mean seperation between muscle-groups or seperation of different heads in a group?).

That you've used has helped you - can we agree on that? Just as we agree that your style of training has yielded great results for you... The scientific approach, I proclaim, is just averagely more applicable. No one is telling you to alter your training style - it just seems so irrational when people refuse to consider the closest thing we have to actual knowledge - science. I think I can speak for the others in this thread and say, that we find such resistance towards rationalism peculiar...?

Lastly - you're a big bloke, I know, but you seem to allocate a little too much credibility to just that fact. For what I believe, a scrawny weekling could potentially be far more enducated on these matters than any of us. I can't see how you could ever argue against that...?

Studies can be found on Pubmed, Hubmed and the likes. Ask for references and I'll gladly find some for you (though you don't seem very interested in that at all anyway).

 

[Line]

So how many more years must I train before I am able to say what works for me???...and where are these numerous controlled studies, you two have mentioned them, where are they?

Everyone in this thread that disagrees with you either reads studies or is studying one or more aspects of fitness science. Start at pubmed and go from there.

I agree but I am not the only one to feel this way, so what exact number of people do you want??

Ever here of psychosomatic results or confirmation bias?

I was pointing out that so called expert opinion can be proven wrong by a practical event. In other words people can sit on thier asses and tell other people "this is how it is" or they can get off thier ass and do it. I prefer the later.

And I was pointing out that they chose to ignore any measurable scientific evidence and instead believed in dogmatic theories. It sounds to me that you're actually sharing similar sentiments; you're the one following outdated principles while we're trying to incorporate new, evidential science to improve ourselves and others.

I am amazed at guys that have not competed, not made a succesful living from BB, but go against some one that HAS just because Milos disagrees with geeks in white coats. absolutaly amazing

I have a respect for Milos when it comes to things like dieting and contest preparation because he's been there. However, you can't honestly tell me you think he knows more about the voluntary bodily movement on a cellular level than scientists. If you do...wow...just wow.

If it ain't broke don't try and fix it, when you had guys the size of Arnold back in the 70's obviously the training methods were already working, only the drugs and the nutrition had the "most" room for improvement.

The basics were there and they mostly relied on them but do you honestly think that working out like Arnold and other golden era boys is the most effective way to train? Please. Do five sets of five exercises twice a day and get back to me...oh wait, you probably can't because a normal person doesn't have four hours every day to devote to training, nor do they have the genetic capacity or the drugs needed to do so.

No they haven't, most of them have used drugs as well, swimming, cycling, sprinting, boxing, Olympic lifting, all codes of football have used drugs to get the edge and improve times and performance......even Archers use Beta Blockers to slow their heart rates.

You really (and I mean really) could not have missed the point more. I was not saying other sports didn't incorporate drugs, I was saying that other sports and recreations have developed far more efficient methods and practices for improving performances thanks to technology. This includes both equipment used and the biomechanics of movements essential to the sport.

To me 40 yrs of shit that has worked, is far better then some guy trying to get his name out there in a world where every wants to be the next GURU of bodybuilding and have a theory on what works. Yet go to any prison like the ones I worked in and you will see guys that know fuck all, and are huge from lifting heavy weights and eating as much as they can........doesn't seem like you need to be a scientist to me.

You seem incredibly stubborn on your ways and also like you have this inflated sense of pride in doing things the old-fashion way. If you can eat more calories in than what you use in a day and are increasing strength with the same form and rep ranges, yes, you're going to gain weight. However, here we're talking about maximizing gains using what we've learned as of late and you're dismissing it on the grounds that, A) you know what works for you, and B) scientists are small and inexperienced at lifting so therefore they cannot be right. You seem to be going out of your way to deny the educated who are trying to help people by making outlandish claims like DBs give you improved separation and fullness but have no physiological explanation as to why. I'm seriously waiting for the, "do high reps if you're trying to cut" argument because it's really no different than some of the things you're claiming to be true.

 

[PUMBA]

a) You claim you have suck great genetics....perhaps you grow no matter what you do? You're the kind of guy who says to a guy who increased his bench from 100 to 400 hahaha ik bench 450 (with a starting weight was 400), you're a noob, you know nothing. Brutal logic

A NOOB!!! BWAHAHAHAHA this from a piss ant that won't post pics or anything but claims to be an expert on BB and the science around it. Alot of great scientist tested shit on themselves jornT give it a go and you may just grow.....did you like that rhyme, it was just for you because I think your special....in a retarded way.
You wank, why would I claim to have SUCK genetics, No I don't grow no matter what I do, and as for being so strong....I"M NOT in fact I'm very weak for my size, because I train more so for hypertrophy then strength. Line and I actually have a friendly rivalry going in that area and he is kicking my ass ...for now.

b) I knew nothing of gear, cry cry cry. Born stupid and learned nothing new.
Dude I was playing Rugby Union at the time why would I have entertained the need for gear. Again you just highlight how much of book worm you are. You like an Industrial Engineer, you could TELL me how to build an awesome building, but in reality could not put together a model car. Because you do no practical analysis to check finding you just read it and say n"duh it must be right because Joe Bloggs said it...(but that only counts if the guy has letters behind his name.

c) You say we make claims but give no sources, yet and 3 lines after that you make claims that so called experts are proven wrong...yet give no sources/examples yourself...epic self owning.I posted so many studies here and even more back on bbd and you think we can't come up with sources? The simple reasons I don't do it everytime, is because 95% of the people don't understand it anyway. If someone asked for references after a claim, I never failed to back it up once.
Except Now of course!!

d) yeah yeah, I'm a pencil neck. Haha that means much from a morbidly obese guy I'm not trying to be a bodybuilder, and this is hard to understand for you, but not everyone wants to step on stage in a posing trunks for a day, while the rest of is live is walking around in an environment of evenly retarded people who try to put your lights out.
Dude I have, I'm sure experienced more in life so far, then what you probably ever will, and that has come from unfortunate circumstances in my working life as well as private.

e) You stole that jerry springer comment from me.
NO!!! your such an uppity little cock sucker, It just finished playing on a rerun on Cable behind me you idiot. Yeah I'd really pay tribute to you Bwahahahahaha!!!

f) How is Big Cat, your friend? hahahahahahahaha
Hmmm where did I say that??? That is your little claim jerk off!!

g) Are you a IFBB pro yet?
NOPE!!! and maybe I never will be, but it wont be because I haven't tried JORNT.
You see just because life puts up barriers, I don't hide in my little room, read books and jerk off to underwear catalogues like you do. I go out and try to do the best I can.

h) It's just self defense guys, he started, I'm just better at it.
You could not defend your self against a blind kitten, you are so genetically inferior, that in past times you would have been abandoned at birth as a runt.

Love you jornT, your fun, but really not in my league no matter what reference book you are now reaching for.

You see jornT this is a Bodybuilding Forum, the "I'm an asshole that reads alot and want's to appear smarter forum" is looking for a new MOD so go there pleeeeeaaaaase.

 

[PUMBA]

PUMBA dude...

No one is trying to take ANYTHING away from you. Where did you get that impression? No one is claiming that following dogmas doesn't produce results. Training like you do yourself can produce magnificent results. That other methods are better verified doesn't necessarily have to have an effect on your training. Some of us choose the scientific path and some of us don't...

No mate, its when people put after a comment which implies people are some what less intelligent because they do things different or have a difference of opinion. Which is what caught my eye in your first reply, I had a knee jerk reaction to that, sorry if I've offended anyone except of course jornT but he is always an exception .

The problem is, that you guys seem to present these dogma in a way that makes inexperienced lifters interpret them as truth. And you refer to people that have drastically altered chemical profiles which makes any following argument invalid...
Fair enough yes the example I used as far as well known BB's I'd agree with you. But not in my own experiences or that of people I have written programs for since the early 90's and also my training parteners.

Hence, your arguments stand weak from a scientific pov. Perhaps you would care to explain how DBs, stretching and massaging hightens "seperation"? (do you mean seperation between muscle-groups or seperation of different heads in a group?).

That you've used has helped you - can we agree on that?
Just to end the argument yes...though I anyone that posts on here would argue it couldn't have being I was playing rugby union not even training with weights, I used no PCT's so that would have probably sent me pbackwards rather then forwards....and it was over seven yrs ago and at least five yrs before I got heavy into weights. That is why I down played it. But hey for the record I'll see how I go this yr then next yr I want cycle anyway.
Just as we agree that your style of training has yielded great results for you... The scientific approach, I proclaim, is just averagely more applicable. No one is telling you to alter your training style - it just seems so irrational when people refuse to consider the closest thing we have to actual knowledge - science. I think I can speak for the others in this thread and say, that we find such resistance towards rationalism peculiar...?
That's fine, it's only when people say it is IMPOSSIBLE because my reference book says so, that I get anoyed. Science is like most things in life, it can be also floored by different conditions or MONEY or lack off funding. For how many years (keep in mind i'm 34) at school did we get told about the planets and that these are the Planets in the Solar system....but now mysteriously there are more?? THINGS CHANGE, is all I'm saying, you would have to agree that in many areas of science there are conflicting arguments, that is where I just go with what works for me.

Lastly - you're a big bloke, I know, but you seem to allocate a little too much credibility to just that fact. For what I believe, a scrawny weekling could potentially be far more enducated on these matters than any of us. I can't see how you could ever argue against that...?
My thoughts are this. How can someone that may have trouble putting on mass no matter what ( this not directed at you just making a point), say oh you are just big no matter what?

All I said at the beginning was basically that with BB press I seem to get stronger therefore push more weight thus I grow. But with DB I can't handle as heavy a weight but, get a different range of motion that I get a better contraction with. Thus I find after a while with the contraction/squeeze I get better/fuller pumps which seems to fill my chest outand looks more shapely, as a follow on I get more seperation at my delt/chest tie in and my inner pecs seem to become more striated......If this is scientifically impossible, yeeeehaaaaa I'm a freak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Studies can be found on Pubmed, Hubmed and the likes. Ask for references and I'll gladly find some for you (though you don't seem very interested in that at all anyway).

If I find something isn't working for me, or I'm told hey try this as it has worked for me. Yes I will read and try as miserable as jornT believes my intelligence is ha ha ha...try to understand it and then exacute it.


By the way I really like the way you brought forward your view this time it was far nicer thanks.

 

[PUMBA]

Everyone in this thread that disagrees with you either reads studies or is studying one or more aspects of fitness science. Start at pubmed and go from there.
oops so that means I must be wrong, sorry to everyone who read my initial response to SERBS question apparently I have not experienced anything that I have claimed. Therefore I am a lying peace of shit, scum of the earth, attention seeking freak with no morals at all
NOTE: No PUMBA's were harmed in my attempt to grow

Ever here of psychosomatic results or confirmation bias?
Yeah the first one was in a really cool song, damn I used to go off to that song.

And I was pointing out that they chose to ignore any measurable scientific evidence and instead believed in dogmatic theories. It sounds to me that you're actually sharing similar sentiments; you're the one following outdated principles while we're trying to incorporate new, evidential science to improve ourselves and others.
You do realise you have just managed to piss off every religious percson here and around the world.........don't worry you can hide at my place
I'm not the one who said, hey PUMBA your wrong, it can't work and anyone else that said the same your wrong too

I have a respect for Milos when it comes to things like dieting and contest preparation because he's been there. However, you can't honestly tell me you think he knows more about the voluntary bodily movement on a cellular level than scientists. If you do...wow...just wow.
I don't know what his actual knowledge base is to be honest, I just know if he stands next to jornT and tells me thsi works and jornT flicks through his latest nerd journal and says "no it can't work"......I'm listening Milos.

The basics were there and they mostly relied on them but do you honestly think that working out like Arnold and other golden era boys is the most effective way to train? Please. Do five sets of five exercises twice a day and get back to me...oh wait, you probably can't because a normal person doesn't have four hours every day to devote to training, nor do they have the genetic capacity or the drugs needed to do so.
Isn't 5 x 5 back in these days??? Na I can cause I chucked in my job yesterday.

You really (and I mean really) could not have missed the point more. I was not saying other sports didn't incorporate drugs, I was saying that other sports and recreations have developed far more efficient methods and practices for improving performances thanks to technology. This includes both equipment used and the biomechanics of movements essential to the sport.
Ok I missed, like really missed the point I may be wrong, like really wrong but i thought you dismissed the improved gym machines?? and I thought all the DOGCRAP etc etc and the many other new principals stuff was suppose to be improvements

You seem incredibly stubborn on your ways and also like you have this inflated sense of pride in doing things the old-fashion way. If you can eat more calories in than what you use in a day and are increasing strength with the same form and rep ranges, yes, you're going to gain weight. However, here we're talking about maximizing gains using what we've learned as of late and you're dismissing it on the grounds that,
No we were talking about WHAT WORKS FOR YOU, it was a POLL I answered, and apparently I'm not experienced enough to state what has worked for me!!!
I'm not totally dismissing it, nothing has been presented to dismiss, I am merely saying what has working for me which is what was asked by SERB (yeah thanks SERB LOOOOL and I've been informed that I know nothing and am wrong, first i was told it wasn't possible, but now apparently it could be for me so am I 1:1000 000 000, I think not.
A) you know what works for you, and B) scientists are small and inexperienced at lifting so therefore they cannot be right.
That's is no different then you implying because my Surname doesn't have letters after it, so I can't be right.
That to me is like a Go-Cart driver telling a NASCAR driver how to handle excessive speed...yes they both know about in theory, but only one has truelly experienced it for himself.

You seem to be going out of your way to deny the educated who are trying to help people by making outlandish claims like DBs give you improved separation and fullness but have no physiological explanation as to why. I'm seriously waiting for the, "do high reps if you're trying to cut" argument because it's really no different than some of the things you're claiming to be true.

OMG you mean that's not true

YES I'm stubborn LINE, can you forgive me??? Does love still live here???

Look bro read what I said to TUNEN (not what I said to jornT cause you will probably ban me loool.....hope not

Like I said to him All I said at the beginning was basically that with BB press I seem to get stronger therefore push more weight thus I grow. But with DB I can't handle as heavy a weight but, get a different range of motion that I get a better contraction with. Thus I find after a while with the contraction/squeeze I get better/fuller pumps which seems to fill my chest outand looks more shapely, as a follow on I get more seperation at my delt/chest tie in and my inner pecs seem to become more striated......If this is scientifically impossible, yeeeehaaaaa I'm a freak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I respect you alot LINE and Tunen for that matter and I respect anyone who betters themselves through education and knowledge.

BUT I hate it when I'm told I'm doing the impossible if I've experienced it and have seen it in others.
I'm sure everyone on this board has the experience....you tell someone hey I did "this or that" and the other guy says "bullshit, thats not possible, I read blah blah magazine and it says that can't happen." It's anoying because it kind of implies that your a lieing sack of shit and I don't like being made to think that.

In the end I will just agree to have a difference of opinion in my case and tell everyone else don't listen to me on training advise because I don't have PHD or an LMNOP, I'm just a guy trying to do it.

Can I go now or am I still on detention.

LOVE YA LINE STAY STRONG BRO