I, Bodybuilder by Christian Thibadeau

[Indiscreet]

I hang out over on the T-Nation boards (under my real name, and mostly in the Powerful Women forum) but I haven't really paid any attention to I Bodybuilder.
Before I found MP I did buy some of their protein for the V-Diet and I can honestly say it tasted horrible. I was delighted to discover True Whey after that.
Anyone who's read the Anaconda protocol stuff should have a good giggle at this:
The Ghetto ANACONDA!!!!111 Protocol | AmpedTraining.com | Matthew Perryman, CSCS

[Dino_V]

The hype around this was really incredible. Dont they claim that the supps for the protocol are so expensive to make that they barely break even on them?

[coma]

I pretty much stopped reading this site after the first of these came out. I still like Cresseys stuff but I get his newsletter so if he ever writes for them I get told.

The stunning thing for me is that Thib still claims to be natural, to the point of not giving advice to anyone on the forum using.

Interestingly I did buy some supps from them years back and they did sod all. Add in the extra for import tax and I felt robbed. I still defended the supps though, I had just bought into the marketing so much that even when I could see there was no change from their stuff I still believed it was my fault somehow, like that last set I skipped or the single pint of beer I had were neutralising the effects. Fortunatelt I'm older and more skeptical now!

[CosmicFish]

It's not the first time they've (deliberately?) quoted false data. Fortunately I never bought into their <COMPETITOR> hype. This article pulls it apart quite nicely:


<COMPETITOR>

One of their products I did fall for was <CRAPPY ENERGY PRODUCT>. They have been accused, numerous times, of deleting negative comments about it from their forums. I consider that to be unethical given that their site is the first place someone experiencing bad side effects might go to try to get answers. I got a nice rush from it the first time I used it but, contrary to claims, the effect rapidly dwindled with subsequent dosings. So much for their boast that you won't experience receptor downregulation. And yes, I did space them out - at least a few days apart. I also got the typical flu-like after symptoms that many others reported.

I don't even bother reading the site any more. There have been some great articles in the past, but I'd rather get my information from people and websites I can trust.

[sendos]

Edited your post mate, you know the drill with competitor products. Even though you where slagging off, I fell for the particularly bad energy product myself.

[anabolic]

Quote

The hype around this was really incredible. Dont they claim that the supps for the protocol are so expensive to make that they barely break even on them?

haha ye they wrote that it cost them $90 to produce but they were selling it for $80 lmao. Stupidest piece of **** I've ever read, they are oh so charitable...

[CosmicFish]

Quote

Edited your post mate, you know the drill with competitor products. Even though you where slagging off, I fell for the particularly bad energy product myself.

Oops! Sorry.

[Dadonda]

Quote

The sad thing is I like the idea of the program because it looks like its for strength (the lease useful type of strength... but low reps non the less) NOT for hypertrophy!

I have never hooked on to this low reps for strength, meduim for hypertrophy e.t.c.

In what way is 2 sets of 8 better than 4 sets of 4 ?
The 4 x 4 can be heavier but it will take a bit longer - anything else ?

So why not just do one rep sets?
Any rep scheme is a compromise between intensity and fatigue.

The main idea of low reps (2 - 5) is that the 2nd rep is usually better than the 1st and so might be the 3rd rep and even the 4th rep. By the 5th rep quality (speed) will often drop off if the weight is challenging (which it should be). So why not keep the reps low and make every rep a high quality rep?

Olympic lifters do low reps (nearly always singles, doubles and triples) and they have plenty of muscle.

Old time Bodybuilders/Strongmen (e.g. Hepburn) did mostly low reps (5 or less) and trained each muscle multiple times per week.

Didn't medium/high reps come to the forefront in the 80's with Arnold and Steroids along with training each muscle group only once a week ?

For a drug free trainee, training a muscle group (at least) twice a week is generally accepted as more optimal, so why not go the whole hog and do low reps as well !

[Bobby-bandito]

Quote

I have never hooked on to this low reps for strength, meduim for hypertrophy e.t.c.

In what way is 2 sets of 8 better than 4 sets of 4 ?
The 4 x 4 can be heavier but it will take a bit longer - anything else ?
time under tenstion, sir.

So why not just do one rep sets?
Any rep scheme is a compromise between intensity and fatigue.

The main idea of low reps (2 - 5) is that the 2nd rep is usually better than the 1st and so might be the 3rd rep and even the 4th rep. By the 5th rep quality (speed) will often drop off if the weight is challenging (which it should be). So why not keep the reps low and make every rep a high quality rep?

I cant answer this question... but im sure plenty of people who have acheieved their goals of hypertrophy through higher rep ranges can

Olympic lifters do low reps (nearly always singles, doubles and triples) and they have plenty of muscle.
olympic lifters do not have alot of muscle really...... they also spend hours every day (usually 2-4 hours per day, 6 days per week) holding onto a bar for any partiular lift... you cant just lift like one and expect to get your size on. for the main reason that there is a limited eccentric portion to the OLY lifts.

Old time Bodybuilders/Strongmen (e.g. Hepburn) did mostly low reps (5 or less) and trained each muscle multiple times per week.
umm yes but this accumulative damage to the muscle tissue is what caused the hypertrophy.. also they are not as big as todays athletes.. you also cant listen to what a minority is telling you.. that is one individual result NOT a large mass of peoples

Didn't medium/high reps come to the forefront in the 80's with Arnold and Steroids along with training each muscle group only once a week ?

higher rep work does work for hypertrophy.. its proven. Arnold was a smart man although a rather bad example. also you cannot use steroids to justify your point.. theyare just an extra edge. not a different path all together


For a drug free trainee, training a muscle group (at least) twice a week is generally accepted as more optimal, so why not go the whole hog and do low reps as well !
low reps are useful for muscle size but you cant just say "low reps will get me jacked" its like saying this car will get me from A to B faster then a 4x4.. thats fine until you realise that the road isnt as straight and narrow as predicted and sometimes you just have to understand you cant be so ignorant in your ways, get out of your car, get onto other means of transport and get over that craggy part.

Infact... you can go away, train you and many others for 8 years with low rep sets and come back and show us you and your clients/test subjects results.

[hailtotheking]

The whole time under tension thing has been misinterpreted by alot of people for a long time as being how much time you spend under constant tension

Original soviet research into this was referring to the amount of time in an OVERALL session a person spent working at a given intensity, NOT how much time per set. its just a fancy way of saying training volume at a given intensity in a given training session.