Natural Bodybuilding, Fitness, and Peak Performance

“Does Intermittent Fasting Work”; is it better than 5 – 6 meals?

When asking the question “does intermittent fasting work”, do you get the feeling that the ‘fat loss industry’ is getting desperate? And why shouldn’t it? In a context for which the basic formula for success can be as simple as “calories in/calories burned”, they need something more tantalizing to keep an audience spellbound and coming back for more. And what better way to do that than to simply reverse direction every few years? So what was once a hard and fast rule (i.e. eat 5 or 6 small meals a day) is now a scourge to avoid (i.e. “don’t do THAT; it doesn’t speed your metabolism and your body will adapt”).

As if with the predictability of seasonal change, we’ve now got the question “does intermittent fasting work”, which simultaneously raises the question of effectiveness of its seeming diametrical counterpart: “Does higher meal frequency work?” If they both “work”, which one works better? You’ve got to find yourself asking these questions if the “calories in/calories out” formula falls within the realm of mundane for you.

 

'Intermittent Fasting': Is it the best fat burning method or does it cause weight loss at the expense of calorie-burning muscle tissue?

 

But regardless of your affinity to the latest fat loss fads, you’ve got to honestly acknowledge a common phenomenon: the tendency among marketers of such fads to suddenly “pooh-pooh” what came before in favor of what’s hot now. Current proponents of intermittent fasting (IF) are all too quick to not just answer the “does intermittent fasting work” question in the positive, but to likewise claim that the frequent meal technique is abjectly ineffective. 

So let’s not just investigate the “does intermittent fasting work” question; let’s also revisit whether the frequent eating of small meals works.

“Does Intermittent Fasting Work?” Or is it just a case of “out with the old?”

I recall as if it were yesterday even though it was in August of 2001. I was sitting in a trendy bar across from two of my stepbrothers in the popular Gaslamp Quarter of downtown San Diego. We were drinking lots of beer and discussing one of my stepbrother’s latest passions of the time – a disciplined adherence to Bill Phillip’s ‘Body for Life’ principles. What really resonated with Ron more than any other principle of the program was the recommendation of eating 5 to 6 smaller meals each day instead of the common 1 to 3 daily meals in which much of the population partakes.

“I’ve lost fifteen pounds of fat within a couple of months of doing this”, he said enthusiastically. “I’d have never guessed that eating more often could be so effective without trying it myself after reading the book. I’ve never heard of such a thing”

“That’s strange you’ve never heard of it”, I replied with sincere surprise. “Bodybuilders have been doing that for decades.”

And that’s a fact to consider when confronted with the hyped up sales material of those now pedaling the intermittent fasting protocol. It’s not enough for them to merely say that intermittent fasting works; they have to build its credibility by claiming its counter-practice (frequent meals) was wrong all along. But bodybuilders HAVE been using the ‘frequent meals’ technique successfully for decades. And so have millions of people who’ve lost fat and stayed lean using the 5-6 daily meals protocol outlined by any one of dozens of books.

In pointing this out, I’m not attempting to answer the “does intermittent fasting work” question in the negative; I’m merely saying its proponents are being dishonest in selling it from their decided premise – the notion that small, frequent meals have suddenly been found to be woefully ineffective.

“Does Intermittent Fasting Work?” First off… what is it anyway?

The term ‘intermittent fasting’ is actually pretty vague. That’s because its pivotal root word, ‘fast’, covers a range of applications. With even a basic knowledge of the English language, for example, we know that the word ‘breakfast’ is derived from the fact that we’re “breaking” our nighttime “fast” when we eat our first daily meal. Obviously, this implies that even the relatively short period of food abstinence we experience from 6 to 10 hours of sleep is considered fasting.

We also know that the inherent mystique surrounding an extended fast is nothing new. Every major religion places a special significance upon an adherence to fasting. We instinctively know that its practice is an immediate front-line denial of the flesh while its polar opposite (gorging) is, for many of us, a natural first response to hedonistic impulse. We’ve heard the health-nut crowd tell us (for decades) that fasting somehow “cleanses” our bodies – as if it evokes little Ajax scrubbers to surface in our blood vessels and give them the shine of a freshly cleaned kitchen countertop. (Haha… I’ve always wondered how long they imagine our “post-cleansed” eating takes to dull that shine away)

Now we’ve got a certain type of fasting that’s been labeled ‘intermittent fasting’ (IF). Of course, aside from being vague, the name is also a bit ridiculous because all fasting needs to be intermittent. The only other kind would have to be indefinite or “constant fasting” – which would leave us… well… dead, I think. Of course, we could also engage in a one-time fast, which would also result in no intermittency. But there wouldn’t be a point in doing that unless we discover we hate fasting on our first attempt at adopting its intermittent application.

Okay, with semantics discussions out of the way, let’s look at some common terminology used in the realm of ‘intermittent fasting’:

• ADF (alternate day fasting): Just as the name implies – alternating between a day of not eating with a day of… well, eating like a starving person (which you likely will be after a day of fasting). This is typically done in an eating/not eating pattern of either 24 hrs./24 hrs. or 36 hrs./12 hrs.
 
• Fast-Five Diet: A book by Bert W. Herring that outlines an intermittent fasting regimen of 19 hours of daily fasting coupled with 5 hours of daily eating time. Alternatively, there’s a similar intermittent fasting ratio of 20/4. 
 
• CR (calorie restriction): This includes any type of reduction in calorie intake below a baseline of what was consumed regularly before the reduction. Thus, calorie restriction can be accomplished using intermittent fasting, moderate meal frequency, or high meal frequency.
 
• FFM (Frequent Feeding Model): The practice of eating 5 to 6 (sometimes as high as 8) meals per day as a method of eating fewer calories due to calorie intake that’s more commensurate with energy expenditure. Naturally, this is the method that now needs debunking in order to sell intermittent fasting. Funny… I can almost guarantee that the same people who are now lambasting this technique in favor of I.F. were once singing the praises of FFM as the ultimate answer to everyone’s fat-loss desires.
 
• Insulin Sensitivity: Is a term that refers to how well or poorly the body’s glucose-lowering response to insulin is working. ‘Insulin resistance’ (metabolic syndrome) is a condition of extremely low sensitivity to insulin that results in blood glucose levels that are consistently above normal. Insulin sensitivity relates to our discussion of intermittent fasting as it contrasts with the frequent feeding model because some proponents of IF are now attempting to discredit the FFM by claiming the latter lowers insulin sensitivity.

With that basic terminology as a foundation, let’s further investigate the question “does intermittent fasting work.”

“Does Intermittent Fasting Work”: If so… is it just due to cutting calories?

Those who are suddenly marketing ‘intermittent fasting’ are making bold claims that there’s science behind the practice. These claims are apparently based on just a few limited studies done on intermittent fasting. An abstract for a review of such studies, done by K.A. Varady, can be found right here.

In that review, done in November 2010 at the University of Illinois Chicago’s kinesiology department, the effects of daily CR were compared with those of intermittent CR. Daily CR is considered any daily calorie reduction of 15% to 60% below normal intake. Intermittent CR, in this study review, is 24 hours of ad libitum (volitional intake) food consumption intermittently altered with 24 hours of complete or partial food restriction. In other words, it’s slightly modified ADF (alternated day fasting); modified to the extent that “fasting” on the non-eating day did not necessarily involve the complete elimination of food. The study review was to determine the effects of each of these respective CR techniques on weight loss, fat loss, and lean mass retention in overweight and obese individuals.

What were the results?

According to this review, the two methods were comparable in overall fat loss effectiveness with the intermittent CR method possibly being more effective for retaining lean body mass. Granted, the review only had short-term study comparisons (4 to 12 weeks) for contrasting the effects of lean mass loss to fat mass loss between the two CR methods being compared. However, within this time frame, the daily CR studies showed 25% of weight loss attributable to loss in lean mass, whereas the intermittent CR studies showed 10% of weight loss attributable to loss of lean mass.

Wow, one would think a finding like this would have bodybuilders in droves trading their 5-6 meals of daily CR for a “starving day/feasting day” alternative. Why isn’t THAT happening?

For one thing, the studies being reviewed have their flaws. When examining the entire review, one finds that body fat was measured using a different method for those who participated in the daily CR protocols than was used for the intermittent CR participants. Daily CR people were tested mainly with duel energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Intermittent CR groups were tested mostly with bioelectrical impedence analysis. The difference in accuracy between the two methods is enough to create variability in findings that compare the two diet methods.

Another reason for raised eyebrows among bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts being presented this finding is a lack of research on the effects of intermittent CR (or ADF) for those engaged in exercise protocols. Fasting, or any severe calorie restriction, can obviously expose the muscles of a recuperating bodybuilder or athlete to the ravages of catabolism.

This is something to consider for anyone asking the “does intermittent fasting work” question – especially given the importance of muscle building to counter sarcopenia in one’s quest for long-term leanness.

“Does Intermittent Fasting Work” because FFM doesn’t increase metabolism?

Those who are hell-bent on selling us intermittent fasting as a better fat loss method than FFM are quick to rationalize their claims by bringing up the topic of insulin. They say that “insulin stores fat” and “frequent eating raises insulin.” They basically make the following claims to sell their alternate diet philosophy:

• Eating 5 to 6 meals doesn’t really boost metabolism
• Eating 5 to 6 daily meals raises insulin
• Eating 5 to 6 meals suppresses ghrelin
• Ghrelin is a stimulator of HGH (human growth hormone)
• Insulin is a suppressor of HGH
• Fasting is a stimulator of ghrelin and HGH
• HGH is a fat burning hormone
• Thus… intermittent fasting burns fat and FFM makes you fat

“What?”

In truth, ANY eating raises insulin and the degree it’s raised is more dependent on the insulin sensitivity of the individual and the size/composition of the meal. When we fast and then gorge ourselves with food, we get an insulin spike. When we eat frequent meals that are too big and comprised of sugary food choices, we get an insulin spike. If we eat frequent meals but keep them relatively small and low glycemic, we can get less of an insulin spike and less daily net insulin levels than too much sugar with either IF or FFM.

Furthermore, who among us adopts or recommends the frequent meal model under the assumption that it directly boosts metabolism? It indirectly boosts it by helping build calorie-burning muscle tissue with the providence of catabolism-preventing nutrients for recuperating muscles on a steadier basis. I’ve personally always seen it as a tactic to both make calorie intake more easily commensurate with calorie expenditure while simultaneously keeping the body in positive nitrogen balance. Although the required frequency of meals might be excessive at a point, we know the overall method is effective due to extensive anecdotal evidence from years of practice among bodybuilders and fitness contestants.

And even though ghrelin, low blood sugar, and training in a fasted state might stimulate more HGH release, we can’t just assume that this effect overrides any negative effects of tissue catabolism from mini-starvation periods. It might; it might not. It actually might occur to a very limited extent with the law of diminishing return kicking in at a very specific time.

Is there currently enough “science” to know when that time is? No… there’s not.

With that said, please leave us your comments if you’ve used intermittent fasting to lose body fat – especially if you’ve done it while attempting to build or preserve muscle mass.

“What is the Tabata Method”; does it work?

The world of Internet fitness search content is replete with forum questions consisting of members asking “what is it” and “does it work.” Among the many topics is “what is the Tabata method” and “does it work.” We might as well throw the “what is the Tabata method”/”does it work” inquiry into the ranks of questions about similar workout methods we’ve discussed on this blog:

Does P90X work?

Does CrossFIt work?

Does Tower 200 work?

Do weightless workouts work?

Do Boot Camp Workouts work?

Does the Anabolic Amplifier Effect work?

It would be amusing if it weren’t a bit disappointing that people ask questions like “Does the Tabata method work” without having a concise goal-driven context within which to frame the question. As with these other fitness methods, asking “what is the Tabata method” is perfectly legit in and of itself. Asking “does it work” simply begs the counter question:

“I don’t know! What the hell are you trying to do?”

That might be a little blunt for some people’s taste. I’ll apologize for that.

It might also sound somewhat contrarian to knee-jerk responses you get from other fitness experts. As if in cookie-cutter fashion, they’ll often answer questions such as “does the Tabata Method work” with something like the following retort:

“It depends on how hard you WORK it.”

Oh… isn’t that brilliant? It assumes that every lackluster result experienced in physique improvement is due to insufficient work ethic. I’d estimate that in many cases where it is, the lack of work ethic stems from a motivation deficiency. And… the first requirement for maximum and lasting motivation is in knowing EXACTLY what you want and WHY you want it.

In other words, it’s not enough for creating motivation to simply say “… the Tabata method is hard… it’ll have you gasping for air… therefore, it’ll get you in shape… thus, you should do it.” We’ll leave those types of generalizations to fitness trainers who simply want your money or your nod toward them in ‘acknowledgement of expertise’ for showing you ANYTHING toward which you might gravitate.

With that clarification, let’s answer “what is the Tabata Method” and “does it work?”

 

VO2 Test: Does the Tabata method improve the efficiency of bodily oxygen use better than any other exercise routine?

 

 “What is the Tabata Method?” 20 seconds of all-out sprinting – multiple times

• It doesn’t matter what exercise with which the sprints are performed; as long as it’s one that stimulates large muscles and/or multiple muscles. Some popular ones are pushups, pull-ups, barbell squats, front squats, lunges, thrusters, rowing, mountain climbers, heavy-bag punching, treadmill running, and outdoor running. (“Haha”… I guess this means no triceps kickbacks?)

• The exercise is performed at an all-out effort for 20 seconds, with 10 seconds of rest between sets.

• If doing a repetition exercise (like squats or pull-ups), the objective is to safely perform as many repetitions within each 20-second period as possible. For running exercises (outdoor or treadmill), or other aerobic movements (like punching a heavy bag), the objective is to sprint as fast as possible within each of the 20-second periods.

• This pattern of 20 second sprints with intermittent 10 second rest periods is repeated 8 times for a total of 4 minutes of grueling exercise. 

That’s it; pretty simple. The protocol was glommed from a study by a Japanese researcher, Dr. Izumi Tabata, who decided to study the effects of high intensity, intermittent training as compared with those of traditional, moderately-intense aerobic training. The study was done on a group of speed skaters at the National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Tokyo back in 1996.  

What’s the gist of the study’s findings; “does the Tabata method work?” 

As can be seen by the abstract of the study, the takeaway is that both the body’s aerobic capacity (VO2) and anaerobic capacity (ability to exercise at oxygen deficit) can be improved simultaneously with this type of training. Specifically, within the 6-week study, aerobic capacity went up by 14% in the high-intensity trained group while anaerobic capacity improved by 28%. Contrastingly, the endurance trained (ET) group in the study improved VO2 by 10% and didn’t improve anaerobic capacity at all.

“Does the Tabata Method work”: What is ‘VO2’ and ‘Anaerobic Capacity?’

Since knowing whether something will “work” for you is goal dependent, the best way to answer the question “does the Tabata method work” is to have a goal and know whether ‘improved VO2’ and ‘better anaerobic capacity’ are relevant to that goal. This would obviously start with knowing what each of these respective fitness measurements represent.

VO2 is a scientific representation of how the body both delivers and uses oxygen. With each beat of our hearts, oxygen enriched blood is being delivered to our tissues via arterial vessels. When the oxygen reaches that tissue, a certain amount is extracted for energy use by the cells. The efficiency with which this oxygen is pumped by the heart, delivered to tissue, and used by cells is what VO2 is measuring – especially as demand for oxygen goes up during cardio-respiratory exercise.

 

Anaerobic Capacity: Its maximization along with VO2 is essential for performance in combat and other physically intense sports,
 

Think of the heart’s role in this scenario as a giant delivery truck. The truck is filled with sand (oxygen). The truck reaches an opening in the ground to dump the sand (cell). The measurement of VO2 would be (with this analogy) a measurement of how efficiently the truck gets filled with sand and delivers sand to the open hole. Obviously, if this delivery system isn’t very efficient, the truck might move slowly between fill-up and dump-off. It might also not get filled to its maximum and, thus, need to make more trips to the open hole to fill it. With improved efficiency, the truck could move faster, get filled with more sand at pick-up, and deliver more sand at dump-off.

That’s a very simple (possibly simplistic?) analogy.

Anaerobic capacity is what’s tapped into after we’ve reached our max V02 output. What happens at this point is that an oxygen deficit begins to build. In order for the muscles to continue working in the face of this, the body shifts into ‘anaerobic’ (without oxygen) energy production. It does this through a process called glycolysis; a method whereby glycogen (bodily stored sugar) is synthesized into ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate). The ATP is what’s used for fuel by the muscles and its derivation by way of glycogen also produces lactic acid, which creates a burning sensation in the muscles. This system of anaerobic (without oxygen) energy production is also referred to as the lactic acid system of energy.

So… how does this all relate to the questions “what is the Tabata method” and “does it work?”

The studies that Dr. Tabata has done demonstrate that not only can these two systems be worked simultaneously, but they might be optimally improved using the 4-minute exercise protocol of his original study.

“Does the Tabata Method work?” It’s back to the question of goals

If you’re training for improved performance in a physically demanding sport, the Tabata method (for obvious reasons) could be an excellent protocol to adopt. Sports that come to mind would be football, basketball, soccer, speed skating, boxing, martial arts tournaments, and high school/collegiate/free-style wrestling. Any sport that requires a high degree of both aerobic and anaerobic conditioning would fit the bill.

Incidentally, users of CrossFit training often add the Tabata method to their repertoire of (random) fitness routines.

Since evaluation of the Tabata method as an optimal workout for losing body fat deserves its own discussion, I’ll save it for an upcoming entry.

In the mean time, I encourage feedback from readers who’ve used any variation of the Tabata method.

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size?” A muscle hypertrophy question

When you ask yourself the “how many reps for muscle size” question, do you ultimately see it as an inquisition in how to get from point A to point B? I’m asking this because that is the context in which I see the “how many reps for muscle size” question. In other words, rather than simply thinking that there must be a magic number of repetitions that build muscle size, our ultimate objective is to be capable of moving a heavier amount of weight for a higher number of reps than we can now. Only when we can do that will our muscles get bigger than they are presently.

To most experienced bodybuilders, this is obvious. For some who are new to bodybuilding, it’s something that still needs emphasis. I’ve noticed that inherent within the “how many reps for muscle size” question among some beginners is an assumption that the number of weight lifting repetitions – along with the number of sets performed – will somehow create muscle size while being absent of some other very important factors.

What are those important factors?

What about ‘overload?’ What about progression into higher weights and volumes of weight moved? What about training to just the right amount of intensity without overtraining or under-training? These are all factors of importance that should ultimately determine our overall training strategy for muscle building, along with “how many reps for muscle size.”

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size”: Keep your eyes on the real objective

Surprisingly, even in this age of easily dispensable and acquirable knowledge, there’s much disagreement in the answer to the “how many reps for muscle size” question. You’d think by now we’d have some consensus on the topic based on extensive studies. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case; even the most respected “experts” in the field of bodybuilding seem to have different recommendations.

 

Adding confusion to this is the fact that some bodybuilding enthusiasts adopt and recommend repetition numbers based purely on associative observation.

What do I mean by that?

I mean that they observe the repetition scheme of an admired top pro bodybuilder and associate that athlete’s extreme muscle mass with the number of repetitions (or other tactics) that he or she claims to be using. While the pro bodybuilder may be currently using 10 or 12 repetitions, this doesn’t necessarily mean that person’s always used that repetition scheme. Nor does it mean that he or she couldn’t arrive at their current point (or beyond) while occasionally using a different reps scheme. It often only reliably means that this is the repetition scheme they claim to be using right now. 

That ties into my previous point. The bottom line for muscle growth is that in order for our muscles to be bigger, we need to be capable of moving heavier weight for a higher number of reps than we’re capable of now. A Mr. Olympia like Ronnie Coleman doesn’t have huge muscles merely because he uses a magic 10 repetitions during his sets; his muscles are huge because he can perform any number of repetitions using weights with which you and I couldn’t count any repetitions. To drive home the point: If Ronnie Coleman can perform five sets of 10 reps of behind-the-neck presses with 225 pounds, it doesn’t matter if in working his way up to that he once did sets of 7-8 reps with 185 pounds. His muscles are huge because of the place he’s arrived with respect to weight/repetitions. But this doesn’t mean the place he’s arrived is clearly indicative of how he got there.

In other words, the “product” we should keep our eyes on is higher volumes with more weight. Any repetition scheme is just a “process” for getting there. And it can be a fluid process that’s open to interchangeability.

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size”: Muscle Fiber Types

In answering the “how many reps for muscle size” question, the topic quickly turns to muscle fiber types. That’s because we have three different types of muscle fibers (or motor units) that are recruited (and thus, stimulated) under different respective repetition schemes:

• Slow Twitch Fibers: Also referred to as ‘Type l’ fibers or ‘Red Slow-Twitch Fibers.’ They generate energy through aerobic energy transfer and are thus activated during low intensity, long-duration, endurance exercise. Activities such as walking, biking, swimming, and long-distance running will use these fibers and stimulate their primarily mitochondrial and myoglobin makeup.

 

• Fast Twitch (Type lla) Fibers: Also referred to as ‘Red Fast-Twitch Fibers.’ The reference to the color ‘red’ in their name comes from the fact that (like slow-twitch fibers) they’re highly oxygenated with numerous capillaries. This is because they are used (and stimulated) by a combination of aerobic energy transfer (to build more ATP) and ‘myofibril contraction.’ These fibers demonstrate a combination of both slow-twitch and fast-twitch fiber traits. 

 

• Fast Twitch (Type llb) Fibers: Also referred to as ‘White Fast-Twitch Muscle Fibers.’ The reference to ‘white’ in their name comes from the fact that they’re the least capillary dense of the three. That’s because they derive energy almost entirely from anaerobic metabolism (i.e. energy from the ATP-CP system). These fibers are used when the body is called upon to lift heavy weight for low repetitions. Activities like sprinting, shot-putting, dead-lifting, or bench pressing a heavy weight in which the muscles fatigue at 3-4 reps are all examples of utilization of these fiber types.  

 

To simplify slightly, a muscle cell can be stimulated to grow in one of two basic different ways:

1. Myofibril growth: augmentation of the contractile components.
2. Mitochondrial development: the building of more mitochondria.

The myofibrils are the contractile components of the muscles. They create strength by actually collapsing into each other as they contract. This allows them to shorten and increase in circumference as they are activated. When the myofibrils are called into play with heavy, intense, low repetition sets, the protein filaments (actin and myosin) that comprise them are actually damaged and require protein synthesis for repair.

In contrast, the mitochondria run all along the sides of the myofibrils and are considered the aerobic energy-producing “powerhouses” of the cell. They allow for the muscle cell to produce the aerobic output of daily activity and high repetition contractions through the use of oxygen and ATP (adenosine triphosphate). With intense, high repetition exercise, the cell adapts by building more mitochondria (through protein synthesis) which boosts cellular energy storage and ATP production capacity.

 

'Muscle Building Repetitions': The number that's optimal is genetically different among bodybuilders and can vary among muscles of an individual's body

 

Muscles increase in size primarily with myofibril growth. However, some growth can be obtained from mitochondrial development. Furthermore, it’s believed that mitochondrial development helps lay a foundation for myofibril growth over the long term. This, of course, has an influence in answering the “how many reps for muscle size” question.

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size”: Disagreement among the experts

When I became a certified personal trainer through the NFPT, I was surprised by that organization’s textual claims about weight training repetition ranges. In terms of “how many reps for muscle mass”, they basically teach the following:

• 4-6 reps: Myofibril stimulation by working Type llb/fast-twitch muscle fibers.
• 12-15 reps: Myofibril and mitochondrial stimulation by working Type lla/fast-twitch muscle fibers.
• 20-25 reps: Mitochondrial stimulation by working Type l/slow-twitch muscle fibers.

Interestingly, the NFPT recommends that in order to establish a “working training methodology”, we should avoid the repetition ranges of 7-11 and 16-19 respectively.

What’s their reason for this?

They explain that repetitions in the range of 7 to 11 recruit a joint participation of Type llb /fast-twitch fibers and Type lla/fast-twitch fibers and, thus, work neither muscle fiber-type optimally. Similarly, they claim that reps between 16 and 19 will recruit involvement of both Type llb/fast-twitch fibers and Type 1/Slow twitch fibers, working neither type with optimal results.

Whether this very specific recommendation on reps ranges by the NFPT is plausible is open to debate and experimentation. It certainly sits in contrast to the advice of many other experts. Take strength coach Charles Poliquin for example: He advises bodybuilders to use anywhere from 6 to 20 reps depending on variables such as training experience, number of sets, and the particular muscle being worked. Generally speaking, he thinks the lower reps on this scale should be used by experienced bodybuilders and the higher ranges should be used by beginners. He also believes in adding periodization to the strategy of repetition choices. Aside from what he does recommend, he doesn’t designate blocks of reps within these ranges for bodybuilders to avoid, as does the NFPT.

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size”: Is it a genetic thing?

It’s hardly surprising that individual genetic makeup plays a role in the composition and dispersion of muscle fiber type for which each of our muscle groups are comprised. This suggests a compelling role in how many reps for muscle size that each of us might individually chose. You might have predominantly white fast-twitch fibers making up your biceps with a lower number of red fast-twitch or red slow-twitch fibers within that muscle. Similarly, you might have a greater number of red fast-twitch fibers making up your quadriceps muscle than either white fast-twitch fibers or red slow-twitch fibers. Alternatively, you and I could both have an approximate 50 percent mix of two types of fibers throughout most of the muscles of our bodies.

This genetic aspect of muscle fiber type led Arthur Jones to hypothesize that we can apply a simple test for determining how many reps for muscle size. The test consists of finding the one-rep maximum lift of any isolation exercise and determining how many repetitions one can perform with 80% of that weight. As a simple example, if your maximum lift for one repetition on standing barbell curls is 150 pounds, you’d take 80% of that weight and discover how many repetitions you can perform with that weight:

150 lbs. x .08 = 120 lbs.

120 lbs. (max # of repetitions)

If the max number of repetitions you can perform for one set with this submaximal weight is in the range of 4 to 6, then you’ve primarily got white fast-twitch fibers making up your biceps. If the max number of reps come out somewhere in the 8 to 12 range, then you’ve got mostly red fast-twitch fibers within your biceps.

Although this test can be done on any muscle, it’s not without some inherent flaws. The most salient drawback is that even moderately experienced bodybuilder might have already skewed the results with past training. For example, if he or she has had a bias for strength training in the past, the muscles might already have neurological efficiencies built up for this type of training. Conversely, a past bias for higher repetition, aerobic type work will have built up mitochondrial tissue and efficiencies within them. This just means that this test for determining how many reps for muscle is not an exact science, but definitely a tool with which to experiment.

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size”: Concluding with what’s important

When I browse different bodybuilding forums, I can often spot why many people get frustrated with natural bodybuilding. I believe it’s often because they get fixated on elements of subordinate importance. For example, they’ll discuss “how many reps for muscle size” as if there’s a magic number that which, when plugged in, will cause muscle growth in and of itself. They seem to have forgotten (or never realized) that if there’s a weight of an exercise for which they can presently perform 4 sets of 6 strict repetitions, they’ll have bigger muscles when they can take that same weight and perform 4 sets of 10 repetitions. When that successful augmentation occurs, they realize that repetitions are just one component of a bigger puzzle.

It’s putting that puzzle together and getting from point A to point B that my HardBody Success system is all about.

“Does Long Jack Work”; Does it improve testosterone levels?

There’s obviously a huge market for men who want to improve testosterone levels. Why else would products with claims of doing so be so conspicuously popping up in cheesy TV and radio ads? They publicize claims of improving libido and solving any embarrassing erectile malfunctions. They carry promises of burning belly fat – of raising energy levels and even potentially improving our golf swings. While a resurgence of ‘T-levels’ could very well contribute to these and other positive effects, it remains questionable whether any presently known ergogenic substances can significantly improve the production of endogenous testosterone.

A popularly marketed supplement for boosting testosterone is a botanical called eurycoma longifolia, or “long jack” for short. It’s extracted from the root of an Asian shrub known as Tongkat Ali. The plant is most prevalent and extensively harvested in Indonesia and Malaysia where its extracts have long been used for aphrodisiacal purposes. This historical use would certainly bode well for its prospects as a possible sex hormone enhancer.

So the question is…“does long-jack work”; can it increase testosterone?

By merely taking the words of its marketers at face value, you’d think the stuff reverts all middle-aged men back to their testosterone-driven, pimply-faced, pubescent versions of themselves – complete with spontaneous “arisings” every few minutes that simply come from frequent and random sexual thoughts (not sure I’d want to go back to that again).

A few rodent studies show evidence that the “does long-jack work” question can be answered in the positive; it’s boosted the testosterone of some lab rats. Anecdotal feedback is mixed, however, suggesting the question “does long-jack work” should be answered with the qualification of it depending heavily on product quality and dosage. Adding to the well-advised idea of keeping a healthy skepticism about such products is the discovery that there are companies selling bogus versions of Tongkat Ali extract. Imagine that – as if it hadn’t too long been a common theme in the “hormone boosting” supplement niche for people to knowingly sell stuff that doesn’t work.

With the questionable scruples of a good many supplement companies as our backdrop, let’s delve a little deeper in our investigation of the “does Long Jack work” question.

‘Does Long Jack work?’ Maybe… at a hefty dosage

A study of male rats done in Penang, Malaysia demonstrated the aphrodisiacal effects of eurycoma longifolia. Researchers gave the middle-aged rodents various fractions of ‘long jack’ at 0.5g/kg of bodyweight for 12 weeks as compared to a control group that received a dosage of saline.

So what were the results; does long jack work?

To put it in slang vernacular, the rats receiving the ‘long jack’ turned into some “horny old goats.” Whether this was due to significantly increased testosterone levels was not tested or documented, but one can surmise this to be the case.

It should be noted, however, that the rats received quite a hefty dosage – equivalent to a 170-pound man ingesting almost 40 grams daily of ‘long jack.’ To put this in perspective, notice that the typically marketed product claiming to contain “potent” dosages of ‘long jack’ list amounts of 300 mg to 500 mg on their labels. Assuming these products have actual Tongkat Ali extracts in them, a person would need to consume 80 to 130 capsules per day to get the dosage the rats received. Whew… expensive! Since these marketers recommend taking 3 or 4 capsules of their products per day, they’re not even in the ballpark of caring whether their products are consistent with study results.

An Italian study at the University of Modena had a similar finding. In this study, rats showing different levels of “sexual sluggishness” were given Tongkat Ali root extract (long jack) for 6 to 12 days. The rat’s testosterone levels increased and so did their “mounting behavior.” Even the rodents that had been sexually impotent became motivated and sexually active due to the testosterone-boosting effects of something in the plant’s extract. However, this occurred with similar dosages of 500 mg./kg. of body weight. Again, to put this in human perspective, it would be relative to a 200 pound man consuming about 45 grams of ‘long jack’ per day.

The question is: Does ‘long jack’ work in humans at lower dosages than were used in rodent tests? According to anecdotal evidence… “yes”, but a measurement of extract strength comes into play.

‘Does Long Jack work?’ Maybe… at the right extract ratio

To make the “does long jack work” question just a little more complicated, it can only be answered with consideration of the strength of extract in the product. That makes sense since the active ingredients are separated from a plant root that has many other properties. Consequently, Tongkat Ali extract (‘long jack’) comes in strengths of 1:50, 1:100, 1:200. These ratios indicate the amount of root that was used to boil out the extract. A 1:50 ratio means that 50 grams of root were used to remove each 1 gram of active extract. Obviously, the most potent products would be those containing a 1:200 ration; 200 grams of Tongkat Ali root to obtain each one gram of extract.

The staunchest advocates of ‘Tongkat Ali’ recommend staying away from any products with labels depicting ‘LongJack’, ‘Tongkat Ali’, or ‘Eurycoma Longifolia’ without specifying the ratio of the extract. That makes sense; since the ratio is important, withholding this information would seem an obvious practice to avoid for proving the reputability of the product based on the ingredients therein. Regardless, many products on the market simply have Eurycoma Longifolia listed as an ingredient among others on the label. This is almost a guarantee that the ‘longjack’ in the product will have little or no effect.

Another factor in answering the “does long jack work” question is product quality. Again, the anecdotal evidence provided by those who’ve used the extract and stand by the claim that it raises testosterone provide rules-to-live-by with regard to this. They say that only extracts from plants of ten years or older are effective. They assert that the active ingredients must be painstakingly boiled out of large amounts of the plant roots as opposed to the root powder being merely extracted and stuffed in capsules along with cellulose fillers.

Something of high importance along with the “does long jack work” question is product safety. Tongkat Ali plants only grow in certain parts of South East Asia. That’s where it’s harvested and where product manufacturing takes place. Of the two countries that grow most of it (Malaysia and Indonesia), it’s said that Indonesian sources are the best choice. This is because there've been allegedly potentially dangerous levels of mercury detected in Malaysian Tongkat Ali.

‘Does Long Jack work?’ Maybe… if the source is reputable

Of considerable importance in the “does long jack work” question are the many counterfeit versions of the product. The demand for real Tongkat Ali is greater than supply, making it an expensive supplement. For this reason as well as the intrinsic remoteness of the plant sources, it’s a prime asset for fake versions. Since any ‘long jack’ counterfeiter can bet on both price sensitivity and inaccessible product verification among a big segment of the market, a huge potential exists for price undercutting with large margins. This is the textbook scenario for a substance to have a larger-than-normal percentage of counterfeit varieties.

That would likewise make eurycoma longifolia a prime object for false negative feedback. If the question “does long jack work” can be answered with a “yes” only in the case of real aged root extracts being used in high enough doses, then the threshold for adequate product potency is high. Anything short of this standard would likely be ineffective. If the stuff actually can increase testosterone, one has to wonder how many product triers many have concluded otherwise due to fake or inadequate product potencies.

I’d love to get feedback (positive or negative) from readers who’ve used ‘Long Jack’ for muscle building, libido enhancement, or health benefits. Your comments are appreciated.

“Muscle Development”: Techniques for making it balanced

For those of you who are eagerly seeking “muscle development”, an article on balanced muscle development probably seems irrelevant. After all, when we’re underweight, we just want to get bigger… right? But not so fast; an unbalanced gain in muscle development with little regard for proportion often results an appearance that makes being skinny seem attractive by comparison. Really… who wants to work hard in the gym only to project the image of a baboon? But the imbalances created by mindless weight training with the aim of gaining weight rather than achieving balanced muscle development can result in exactly that – the appearance of a brutish primate or, at the very least, a “dumb jock.”

If we’re going to work hard for muscle development, we might as well strive for the kind that appears aesthetic and sophisticated. This means training in a way that avoids over-development in some areas and under-development in others. It doesn’t imply that any of us can obtain perfectly proportioned muscle development; genetic factors see to it that this is nearly impossible. It just means that we can greatly improve the balance and symmetry of our physiques over their current appearances by using some intelligence and discipline.

 

Underdeveloped pectorals and lats are a common problem for beginning bodybuilders.

 

“Muscle Development”: Areas which are often unbalanced

With a couple decades of gym membership behind me, I’ve observed that there are certain muscle development imbalances that appear most prevalently. These are as follows:

• Overdeveloped chest/Underdeveloped lats
• Overdeveloped chest/Underdeveloped deltoids
• Overdeveloped deltoids/Underdeveloped chest
• Overdeveloped torso/Underdeveloped quadriceps
• Overdeveloped front deltoids/Underdeveloped rear deltoids
• Overdeveloped middle chest/Underdeveloped upper chest

This list does not suggest that other imbalances don’t exist. It doesn’t even pretend to be exhaustive. There are definitely some muscles and (even more so) combinations of them that are omitted from this list. I’m only binging up the most prevalent ones I’ve noticed for the purpose of brevity.

It also doesn’t imply – by contrasting the relatively ‘overdeveloped’ muscle to the one needing augmentation – that the bigger one needs reduction in size. I’m of the opinion that a bodybuilder should never seek to reduce the size of any hard-earned muscle mass. He or she should instead seek only to bring up in development the adjacent, undersized muscle.

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Pecs with Little Lats

Needless to say, big pecs with small lats are a muscle development imbalance that causes the body to appear front heavy. It’s also a very common thing to see in gyms given the relative ease of building pectoral muscles as compared with developing the upper back. Since some bodybuilders can gain respectable pectorals simply by performing some decent presses and some chest-squeezing flyes, they seem to assume that their lats will be just as easy to build. I’ve discovered, however, that gaining thick and wide lats requires concentration and discipline unlike that of building any other muscle.

If you have big pectorals combined with tiny little nubs for lat muscles, don’t blame it on genetics; that’s rarely the culprit. Instead, try applying focus and discipline that 99% of gym-goers don’t apply to their lats exercises. Building thicker lats first requires avoiding the mistake I’ve demonstrated right here. Likewise, making the lats wider demands that we don’t make the mistake I’m depicting in this video. These are common mistakes, so don’t fret if you’ve been making them; just change your tactics and you’ll likely soon be enjoying muscle development in your back that equals that in your pectorals.

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Chest with Small Deltoids

 Here’s a muscle development imbalance I’ve personally been working to rectify. Actually, it’s my deltoids as a ratio of both my pecs and lats that cause my delts to appear too small. This glaring problem has prompted me to recently rethink my technique on shoulder exercises. After just a couple of small tweaks, my delts are beginning to “pop” and are on their way to being in proportion with the rest of my torso.

The big problem for me was in the way I’d been performing my shoulder presses. Of course, shoulder pressing (“military presses”) is a cornerstone exercise for deltoid size. What I’ve discovered is that there’s an ideal grip width for maximally targeting all three deltoid heads, with emphasis on the middle head. I previously used a wider grip, which is not optimal. It turns out that the best grip on the bar is one that’s neither too narrow nor too wide. Thus, in doing any kind of overhead presses (behind the head, in front, or on a machine), the ideal hand-grip position is one in which the lower arms are at a right angle to the upper arms when the bar is at the mid-point of the press.

 

'Bodyweight exercises': Using techniques like pushups as the cornerstone of a workout almost guarantees unbalanced muscle development.

 

Besides narrowing my grip position on the bar, I’ve added an additional tactic to pressing movements. I now consciously shift the gripping pressure to the inside of my palms (near the thumbs) rather than the middle or outsides of them. This puts the stress more squarely on the deltoids instead of having too much on the triceps. I highly recommend this tactic, along with optimal grip width, for bringing up muscle development of the deltoids.

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Delts and Puny Pecs

I’ve observed this muscle development imbalance even among top pro bodybuilders. It’s often blamed on lousy pectoral-building genetics. But show me someone with underdeveloped pectorals and, 98% of the time, I’ll show you someone who either refuses, or doesn’t know how, to target their pec muscles.

For example, many aspiring body builders attempt to build their chest muscles with marathon sessions of barbell bench pressing. This often leads to disappointing results for two reasons:

1. Proper form for maximally targeting the pectoral muscles with bench presses isn’t practiced.
2. Even if it were practiced, excessive numbers of sets coupled with inadequate numbers of inter-workout rest days keeps the entire upper body over-trained.

To effectively target the pectoral muscles with pressing exercises, attention needs to be given to the optimal grip width on the bar or machine handles. This is similar to what was described above in regard to shoulder presses for delts development. Many bodybuilders (myself included) make the mistake of gripping at too wide of a point to really create maximum contraction of the pectorals. This can inadvertently shift much of the stress to the deltoids. Gripping too narrowly can, of course, shift too much stress to the triceps. In order to maximize contraction of the pecs, a grip just slightly outside of the elbows is actually optimal. On positive repetitions of presses, a very slight inward pressure toward the middle chest will further stress the pectorals when an optimal grip width is used.

Along with ideally gripping the bars or machine handles on presses, correcting sloppy form on flyes can also work wonders for a lagging chest. I’ve observed that many bodybuilders with underdeveloped pec muscles perform dumbbell flyes in a way that makes them a combination between flyes and presses. Rather than keeping a rigid and only slight bend at the elbows, they choose to make half the exercise movement occur at the elbows, effectively doing a half press/half flye. This combo allows neither segment of the movement to be optimal and often results in relatively unstressed pectoral muscles. To see my demo of the contrast between optimal and suboptimal way of performing flyes, you can check out the video right here.

Correcting the number two reason above is just a matter of reducing the number of sets and/or increasing rest days between workouts.

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Torso and Small Quads

Here’s a muscle development imbalance I’ve had for quite some time and am currently making great progress in correcting. Although I’ve always worked my lower body with extreme intensity, my tendency to grow in the hips, hamstrings, and glutes has caused my quadriceps growth to suffer by comparison. I’ve been turning this around recently by making a simple but vital shift while performing any type of leg pressing exercise.

The way to shift more of the stress onto the quads with leg presses is actually rather counterintuitive. It requires performing those exercises with emphasis placed on pressing at the heels of the feet rather than the toes. For those of us lacking adequate ankle flexion, this can best be done with leg pressing exercises rather than squats. Simply lift the toes slightly off the leg pressing platform and push the weight from the bottom portion of the feet.  By pressing from the ankles rather than the middle or top of the feet, contraction shifts more to the front area of the quadriceps. This can be of tremendous help in bringing underdeveloped quads up to par with a more developed torso.

 

Good rear delts development depends on proper focus and controlled workout techique to really isolate the area.

 

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Front Delts with Small Rear Delts

Some of the easiest muscle development imbalances to inadvertently attain are those in the shoulder region. Since there are three heads to the deltoids, it’s a body part that’s very susceptible to overdevelopment in one or two areas while the third gets left behind. Believe me, I know this from personal experience; I’m bringing up my underdeveloped rear delts as of the time of this writing.

The posterior head of the deltoids (rear delts) is often the most difficult to effectively target. It requires special focus and discipline for those of us not possessing the genetic predisposition of size in that area. I’ve noticed, however, that once this little-known focus is practiced, the rewards quickly become worth the efforts; my rear delts are finally beginning to “pop” from making a couple of vital shifts in exercise technique.

The shift to which I’m referring is in the way I perform ‘rear delts laterals’ on a pec deck machine. Whereas I once simply rotated my deltoids backward as if trying to join my scapulas together behind me, I now do the exercise in a much more controlled manner that isolates the outer-most posterior of the rear delts. My focus has simply been shifted from attempting to move the handles behind me to moving them out to the sides. It takes a good deal of discipline to do this and usually requires substantially reducing the working weight. It’s been well worth it though as this has been effectively giving me a much needed peak to the V-shape created by the lats-building technique described above. I highly recommend it for helping correct this muscle development imbalance.

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Middle Pecs with Small Upper Pecs

This is a very common muscle development imbalance. It’s a glaring one because it often produces a feminine appearance to the chest – something most guys probably don’t want. Conversely, a well-developed upper chest blends aesthetically with wide lats and cannonball-like delts to create a visually appealing upper body – allowing it to simultaneously appear powerful and sleek.

The most obvious reason for underdeveloped upper pectorals is a neglect of doing incline exercises – both presses and flyes. A much less obvious reason for underdevelopment of this region is (believe it or not)… too MANY incline presses and/or flyes. As counterintuitive as that might sound, it happens quite often. The upper pectorals are very easy to over-train.  That’s because they actually come into use when we perform middle-pectoral exercises. So when a bodybuilder performs set after set of flat bench presses and follows that with multiple sets of incline presses, there’s quite a bit of tissue tear-down redundancy involved.  Overtraining a muscle can stunt its growth as surely as not training it at all. Consequently, too much upper pec work can halt growth in the upper region of the chest and the middle pecs can easily appear disproportionately protrusive.

The best way to avoid this muscle development imbalance is by doing nothing redundant for the upper pectorals. In other words, if you perform sets of incline dumbbell flyes for your upper pecs, don’t follow it up with sets of incline cable flyes or pec-deck flyes for the upper chest. There’s no reason for that. Once the upper pecs have been worked by using the pec-building tips covered above in the ‘Big Delts and Puny Pecs’ section, they’re finished; it’s time to rest for their recovery.

Conclusion: Balanced Muscle Development

It’s common to neglect balanced development when starting out in muscle building. After all, when we’re slender and desirous of gaining muscle, aesthetics are usually the last thing on our minds. The sooner imbalances are recognized and corrected, however, the less catching up a bodybuilder will have to do later on when underdeveloped areas become glaringly obvious.

“Picking a Personal Trainer”: Let’s get past the generic advice

If you’re in the process of “picking a personal trainer”, you need more than a typical list of generic advice. After all, picking a personal trainer is not like choosing an auto mechanic or a CPA. Why? Simply because there’s more inherent ambiguity and delay in the results that typical fitness trainers provide than the results provided by most other professions. Think about it: As long as a trainer acts assertively while producing in you bodily fatigue and tightness you hadn’t felt before, you’ll assume the trainer knows what he or she is doing. Moreover, if the trainer is next to clueless and you ask a question to determine if the person does knows what they’re doing, you’ll likely get this answer:

“This stuff takes time; you’ve got to give it at least six months before you really see results.”

 

'Personal Fitness Trainer': A good one will always keep meticulous records in order to monitor feedback and make insightful adjustments.

 
 

Not many professions have that kind of leeway. By the time you realize the trainer provided little more than you could have done for yourself, you’ll have already transferred a big chunk of your hard-earned money to this person. That’s why picking a personal trainer warrants a bit more diligence than, say… picking a landscaper.

Having said that, let’s take a look at the very generic and usual advice you’ll find for picking a personal trainer. In doing so, we’ll acknowledge what’s valuable and worth keeping within that advice – what’s nearly worthless in that advice – and what about it would be more valuable if a caveat or two were added.

‘Picking a Personal Trainer’: The usual list of pointers

Here’s a bullet list of typical pointers to follow when picking a personal trainer. It’s a sort of synopsis taken from several online sources:

• Verify Education of Trainer: Degrees and/or accredited certifications in exercise physiology, exercise program design, and nutrition.

 

• Verify Professional Liability Insurance and Business Policies: When considering an independent contractor who’s not an employee of a facility, make sure the trainer carries liability insurance. In addition, be sure the trainer’s business practices, including billing procedures and cancellation policies, are clear and in writing. 

 

• Verify CPR Certification: Make sure the trainer has updated certifications in CPR and first aid. 

 

• Verify Experience and Specializations: Be sure the trainer has experience working with clients that have had similar goals and specific limitations as you might have.  

 

• Check References: Just as with hiring any professional, the practice of checking personal references is invaluable. Don’t be afraid to ask for them.

 

• Be sure there’s Personal Chemistry: Interact with a prospective personal trainer before hiring them. Be sure there’s rapport and chemistry between you so the sessions are more enjoyable and likely to be successful. When monitoring this, pay close attention to the prospective trainer’s listening skills; this person should be focused intently on your needs and concerns.

 

Although these are all important tips to follow, I have some special pointers and caveats to add to the topic of picking a personal trainer.

‘Picking a Personal Trainer’: The #1 factor before anything else

Before even being concerned with the details of that list, there’s one factor of importance that precedes all others in picking a personal trainer.  In fact, it precedes all else in the successful accomplishment of any important goal. Here it is in a single sentence:

‘Know Your Outcome.’

That’s right. In order to be successful in picking a personal trainer, you need to know EXACTLY HOW you want to improve your body and you need to know EXACTLY from where you’re starting. In other words, you need to specifically identify the gap between where you are and where you want to be. If you can visualize it, that’s even better. The more specificity you have in identifying that gap, the more keenly you can determine whether a potential trainer will help you reach your goals.

In contrast, many people seeking personal fitness training only have a vague idea of what they want. They just want to “get into better shape” or “lose a bit of fat and tone up.”  These types of ambiguous goals only raise the chance of a mismatch between client and trainer and increase the odds of falling short of a truly desired outcome.

Before even approaching prospective trainers, decide what you want with as much specificity as possible. For example, you could come up with something like the following:

“I want to lose 30 pounds of fat and gain 10 pounds of muscle with special muscle gaining emphasis being focused on my chest, back, and shoulders.”

… or…

“I want to build at least 20% more upper body strength in the muscles that will improve my tennis playing.”

… or…

“I want to improve my cardiovascular condition by at least 30% without worsening the nerve damage I have in my feet caused by diabetes.”

While the first example would necessitate hiring a trainer with effective bodybuilding experience, the second example would require one who’s good at developing strength programs for improved sport’s performance. The third example would call for a trainer who can create a good cardiovascular conditioning program while safely working around the symptoms of a serious and complex bodily condition.

The point is this: Your ability to identify the ideal person when picking a personal trainer is only as good as your willingness to precisely define your outcome and accurately assess your current position in relation to that outcome. The rest is much easier after this initial step.

 

 ‘Picking a Personal Trainer’: What constitutes “education” in this field?

 As of this writing, there are no national standards for fitness trainer degrees or certifications. Adding more vagueness to existing qualification standards is the fact that well over a hundred certifying bodies exist. Some require nothing more for certification than online self-study curriculums combined with a few hundred exam questions. On the other end of the spectrum, there are trainers with degrees in nutrition and kinesiology.

Generally speaking, a formal education in nutrition and exercise physiology will likely improve odds that a trainer will provide an effective program and avoid practices that are potentially injurious to clients. In the real world, however, educational credentials don’t guarantee these things and an absence of them doesn’t mean a trainer can’t be phenomenally good. Practical experience has its value. In fact, if I were in the market for a trainer, I’d personally choose one with a lot of practical experience combined with less theoretical knowledge over a highly schooled trainer with little practical experience. But maybe that’s just me. I see it as being similar to the business world; I’ve seen people with MBAs from top schools who admit to having terrible business sense. Conversely, there are entrepreneurs with no formal education in business but whose real-world accomplishments make them bastions of vocational insight. This caveat, as it exists among personal trainers, can probably best be discovered through thorough investigation of personal references.

As a rule, be sure a trainer you’re thinking of hiring is at least certified by an NCCA accredited organization. The NCCA (National Commission for Certifying Agencies) has existed for over 25 years and uses a peer review process to accredit allied health professionals such as nurses, therapists, dieticians, and athletic trainers. In 2003, they added fitness training certifiers to their clientele. There are currently only a handful of fitness certifications that are NCCA accredited. The following is a list of nine of such certifications:

 

American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)

American Council on Exercise (ACE)

International Fitness Professionals Association (IFPA)

National Academy of Sports Medicine (NASM)

National Council on Strength and Fitness (NCSF)

National Exercise and Strength Trainer’s Association (NESTA)

National Exercise Trainer’s Association (NETA)

National Federation of Professional Trainers (NFPT)

National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA)

 

To reiterate my earlier point about formal education, let me share this: I’ve got nearly thirty years of experience in fitness. I’ve met trainers with degrees in kinesiology and certifications from the American College of Sports Medicine whose instruction I would not seek in a gym setting. On the other hand, I’ve known “uneducated” bodybuilders who’ve forgotten more about effective exercise technique than many college-trained trainers will ever know. This occasional dichotomy, though not a generalization to live by, is something to consider when picking a personal trainer.

‘Picking a Personal Trainer’: Some Unorthodox Tips

If education can’t always be trusted when picking a personal trainer, what’s one to do in an industry that inherently combines ambiguous outcomes, random and esoteric practices, and slick-talking practitioners? Here’s my own personal list of red flags to steer clear of in order to prevent wasting your hard-earned money.

1. If they don’t record anything – don’t hand them your money: Watch a trainer for at least a week as he or she trains other clients. If the “trainer” is merely instructing and counting repetitions without recording anything either on paper or digitally, I’d recommend looking elsewhere. This is the epitome of laziness. They might be fooling their current clients, but they’re not fooling you and me. Effective training requires constant, pinpoint feedback and adjustment. That requires RECORDS. If they tell you they’re keeping it all by memory, get out of the gym ‘coz the “you-know-what” is getting deep in there.

2. Determine if there’s an “exit strategy”: A good trainer should have the objective of making you an independent trainee. They should have YOUR self-interest in mind, and that interest should not be in gaining a life-time, costly gym companion who counts repetitions. It should be in becoming a confident, dynamic, lean, strong, and in-shape person who knows your own body better than ever before.  

 

Good fitness trainers are sticklers for proper form and purveyors of focus and motivation. 

 

When picking a personal trainer, don’t be afraid to ask for a birds-eye view of the entire strategy the trainer has planned before you begin. The first session should be a free consultation. This is where information is gathered from you and the prospective trainer should be listening intently. It’s also the point I’d recommend you ask for a written layout of their entire plan, including an unambiguous explanation of how it will help you toward the outcome you seek. The trainer might need to email it to you after mapping it out. Whatever… if they won’t provide it, hold onto your money and look for someone who will.

3. Steer clear of lack-of-instruction: There must be a hundred ways to use workout equipment ineffectively or only marginally effectively. Contrastingly, there’s an optimal way to perform each exercise so that it maximally ‘works your muscles’ rather than just ‘moves some weights.’ Despite this, I’ve seen countless personal trainers allowing or instructing their clients to perform exercises in a sloppy manner. This is not easy to spot for the beginner who’s stepping into the gym for the first time or hasn’t worked out in years.

Again, my suggestion is to watch a prospective trainer interact with other clients. If the trainer engages in a lot of instruction on how to use proper form, that’s a good sign. Conversely, if the trainer seems to provide minimal instruction while the trainee is obviously using sloppy and uncontrolled form, hold onto your money; there are a lot of good trainers from whom to select.

4. Beware of anything that doesn’t make sense: When you see a “trainer” who’s putting a client with a hundred pounds of excess body fat through a set of ‘triceps kickbacks’, a red flag should go up. At the least, this trainer has his or her priorities mixed up – the exact opposite of a major quality you should seek in a personal trainer. There’s no reason for a person carrying that much cellulite to be doing resistance training. In that situation, all mental and physical resources should be devoted to getting body fat under control.

A trainer might argue that the muscle being built will help the overweight client lose body fat. Don’t buy it. When body fat is majorly out of control, the endocrine system is so out-of-whack that muscle gains would come at a snail’s pace (if at all).

If you witness this kind of ‘dufus activity’ in a prospective trainer, my recommendation is to hold onto your wallet ‘til you see a better one.

5. Steer clear of perpetual esotericism: If tip number one (above) is followed, there should be no reason for a trainer to put you through “mystery activity.” But this is exactly what many will do in order to project the impression that “they’re the expert” and that you’ll likely need them indefinitely or, at least, for a very long time.

Beware of personal trainers who constantly require a balancing act with nearly every exercise instructed. This should especially be the case if your goal is building muscle and strength while losing body fat. A trainer’s tendency to steer clients toward difficult exercises, even when balance improvement was not a client request, often arises from the desire to build trainer/client dependency. Don’t fall for this one if you want maximum results for your money.

Additionally, I recommend looking elsewhere if a trainer attempts to make it all sound especially complicated. Yes… there’s quite a bit to know about exercise performance, workout design, strength enhancement for sports, nutrition, etc… At the same time, none of it is exactly rocket science and much of it is intuitive. Making progress in physique improvement is ultimately about incremental experimentation with sensitivity to feedback. Above all, any effective routine, regardless of specific goal, needs to follow a pattern of overload and progression. If these two combined elements are missing from ANY routine, the results will be disappointing.

A successful trainer/client relationship is really one of mutual dependence; you rely on them for expertise and guidance while they rely on you for commitment, discipline, and willingness to follow detailed recommendations. It should be a balanced relationship. If it seems out-of-balance during the initial consultation, don’t be afraid to balk and keep your options open.

To read my opinion on trainers and steroids, just visit this page when you get the chance.

 

Happy Training!



‘Build Body Mass’: “Does mustard build muscle?”

Just two days prior to this writing, I was at the gym and noticed something I’ve occasionally seen over the years. It was a gym member who displayed numerous tell-tale signs of using steroids (nothing unusual about that). However, what was interesting is that he possessed significantly less muscle mass than many natural trainees (including myself). And while I don’t pretend to know the bodybuilding goals of fellow gym-goers whom I’ve never met, it is worth noting that any person willing to spend the money for and tolerate the side-effects of steroids is likely trying to ‘build body mass’ and strength as quickly and extensively as possible.

So what’s my point?

It’s to underline the salience of something I heard years ago: Even steroid-users can over-train. Even those relying on pharmaceuticals to pick up the slack for all their bodybuilding miscalculations can experience stalled progress in their quest to ‘build body mass.’ So if those using powerful drugs to augment their bodybuilding progress fail to optimize results through smart training – where does that leave the rest of us? It should leave us with the realization that if we train naturally, we’ll need to apply even more attention-to-detail if we want to get anywhere.

   

'Does Mustard Build Muscle?' As far-fetched as this notion is, those struggling with ineffective muscle building routines will probably not see the yellow substance the same way as before.

 

Despite this bodybuilding truth, millions of physique improvers train haphazardly while waiting anxiously for a natural supplement that will significantly bolster their attempts to ‘build body mass.’ They jump at nearly any glimmer of light; snatching up the latest herb or biochemical extraction appearing on the market with studies that “prove” its effectiveness on anabolism. And while I’d welcome a healthy supplement that accelerates inter-workout recuperation, I temper anticipation of one with the following bit of wisdom:

‘No supplement proven to help ‘build body mass’ can override the negative effects of bad training practices.’

Do you feel a knee-jerk objection to that? If so, think of what we’ve just gone over – the phenomenon of steroid-users not always having impressive development. If protein synthesis-enhancing drugs don’t always override poor training practices, imagine where that leaves a natural alternative in the same circumstance. To put it bluntly: flushed down the toilet.

‘Build Body Mass’: Does homobrassinolide build muscle?

The latest buzz in the world of possible muscle building ergogenics is mustard. Yes… we’re talking about that pungently flavored yellow stuff that’s so tastily dowsed on a hotdog at a baseball game (at least that’s where I’ve eaten a lot of it). I guess we never realized how ‘anabolic’ we’ve been acting while in such a seemingly “un-anabolic” state – witnessing others engaged in athletic performance. Joking aside, those wanting a boost in their quest to ‘build body mass’ likely want to know: “Does mustard build muscle?”

Evidence that it does comes from a recent rodent test. A study done by researchers at the University of North Carolina and published in FASEB showed that rats that were given a daily dose of homobrassinolide (a brassinosteroid found in mustard greens) experienced the following effects as compared to a control group:

• Increased muscle mass
• Increased size and number of muscle fibers
• Increased appetite
• Improved physical performance
• Minimal or no ‘androgenic side effects’

Wow… should I reach for the squeezable mustard bottle or just scoop it out of a jar with a spoon? Haha… just kidding.

The first thing I wonder when reading about a research study like this is what gave these guys the idea to run the experiment in the first place. When thinking of all the things one could force-feed a rat to find out if it will ‘build body mass’, what leads to the idea of mustard plant extracts? Was it oozing out of one of the researcher’s lunch sandwiches one day and he said “Hey… let’s test this stuff?”

Maybe it’s because brassinosteroid is a known plant hormone. They’re a class of polyhydroxysteroid that regulate plant growth.  I guess researchers figured if these work for the biosynthesis of plants, they might work for the protein synthesis of mammals. Regardless, they reported that the rats that were given it got kind of “yoked” (my word choice), with increases in both overall body weight and lean body mass. As mentioned in the study’s abstract, an average 6.7% strength increase occurred in the rat’s lower bodies as evidenced by grip strength. Also, muscle fibers (types l, lla, and llb) increased in the gastrocnemius (calf muscles). Wow… and I wasn’t even aware that rats have calves.

Based on the study’s abstract, I can’t determine how much lean body mass the rats gained, which is the only thing that should matter to bodybuilders and athletes aiming to ‘build body mass.’ This seems especially important given the study’s findings of increased appetite and overall weight. Let’s face it – if the biggest difference homobrassinolide made to the rats was to increase their hunger and turn them into lard-asses that couldn’t outrun a starving fox; then who needs it?

‘Build Body Mass’: Does Mustard Build Muscle? A lot of it… Maybe

Another factor worth noting about the study published in FASEB is the dosage of mustard plant extract that the rodents received. The study abstract says the rats got up to 60 mg. per kilogram of bodyweight per day for 24 days. Let’s just convert that over to the equivalent of what a 160 pound human would need to take.

160/2.2 = 72.8

72.8 x 60 = 4,368

That’s over four grams (about 4.4g.) of brassinosteroid per day for a human; quite a hefty amount. One has to wonder about costs and possible side effects at such a dosage. I guess we’ll have to wait for the human tests to know of any side effects. Funny… even if rats get a bit dizzy from too much plant steroid, they’re not very communicative about it.

If nothing else, when we see cheesy internet ads (like the ones for Force Factor) presenting products with significantly less brassinosteroid per dosage than this, we’ll know to call the company and say the following:

“C’mon guys… I get more friggin’ brassinosteroid on my hotdog down at the stadium. What’s up with that?”

This assumes, of course, that the plant steroid is included as part of the extract that ends up in the condiment jar. Regardless, it’s fun to joke about… right?

Cautious Optimism with an Eye on the Stricken

We athletes, bodybuilders, and underweight guys tend to view these things with a bit of self-centeredness. What might be of most significance is not just the potential for brassinosteroid to ‘build body mass’, but to prevent its reduction and wasting among those with muscle wasting diseases. After all, it’s those individuals who can’t prevent degenerative muscle loss with the simple discipline of bodybuilding workouts coupled with good protein, carbohydrate, vitamin, and mineral intake.

And for those of you who can’t wait for definitive evidence answering the question “does mustard build muscle”, exercise wisdom along with your muscles if someone releases a brassinosteroid product on the marketplace. Keep in mind that university studies are invariably funded by people with a biased interest in their results. Also, remember that even potent drugs don’t compensate for ineffective training techniques.

In other words, exercise cautious optimism while continuing to make gains through smart training.



‘Motivation for Workouts’: It’s deeper than you think

When you search for tips on getting ‘motivation for workouts’, do you get tired of the ‘scratch-the-surface information’ that comes up? You know the stuff to which I’m referring; it usually reads like a laundry list of small changes or ritualistic habits people adopt to fire themselves up for a bodybuilding or fat burning workout. Some of these methods are effective and others more superficial. One thing’s common among most of them – they rarely provide deep or lasting ‘motivation for workouts.’

I’d like to share with you what I’ve personally learned about ‘motivation for workouts.’ It’s based on both practical experience and theoretical knowledge. The experience part comes from my being involved with physical training in one way or another since my early teens. The theoretical knowledge is based on an NLP certification and my reading of dozens of books on the psychology of mental fitness and motivation. Combined, these experiences provide me a unique perspective on motivation for workouts – one in which you can certainly benefit.

‘Motivation for Workouts’: It stems from personal values

Personal values are the things that are individually important to each of us. They determine, in large part, what we each pay attention to and what we often ignore through a sort of default mechanism. They act at the subconscious level most of the time and have a huge influence on motivation levels for any prospective opportunity or task we’re presented.

Obviously, in order to have motivation for workouts, we need to hold the purpose of those workouts at a high enough personal value level for action to be spontaneous. Since working out is a ‘process goal’ that’s used in the pursuit of a ‘product goal’ (a better body), the product goal needs to be highly valued for the process to occur. In other words, ‘having a better body’ needs to be adequately valued so that working out is of likewise value.

Complicating things a bit is the fact that personal values tend to compete with one another. That makes sense since we all only have twenty-four hours available in each day. For example, if someone personally values large amounts of academic pedigree, the time they have available to work out in the gym is likely limited by the value they hold for studying. And keep in mind that these are just two possible competing values used as examples (a better body vs. high academic pedigree); most of us have many more that constantly compete with one another for our time.

Given this competition among values, we tend to hold them in our minds in a sort of subconscious hierarchy. Keeping with our examples of ‘a nice body’ versus ‘a large academic pedigree’, whichever of these two possible conjunctive values a person holds in more importance will be higher in their subconscious hierarchy and likely win more personal time and attention than the other. This has a big effect on motivation; the value of ‘a better body’ needs to reside at a high enough hierarchal level so as to make motivation for workouts more an automatic impulse.

What’s exciting is that values can be shifted. The results of a positive habit can become important enough to us so as to effectively “rev up” our motivation to repeat that habit. One key to this is in identifying more ‘global’ reasons for each value and then seeing where they connect on that level. The way to identifying a ‘global’ (or “chunked up”) value is by simply asking yourself what’s important about a particular ‘concrete’ value. For example, if you value ‘having a nice body’, you’d ask the following question:

“What’s important to me about having a nice body?”

Let’s say (just as example; your answers may differ) the answer comes as the following insight:

“I’d have more energy and feel better about myself when mingling with other people.”

You’d then ask yourself “what’s important to me about having more energy and feeling better about myself when mingling with other people?”

This might bring up the following answer: “I’d enjoy better health and more personal connections.”

You could then ask yourself what’s important to you about those things. This is often called “chunking up” on a value. What’s interesting is that if you chunk high enough – and then chunk up on a “competing value” (like ‘academic pedigree’) – you’ll often find that the reasons meet each other at the higher levels. It could be that a person wanting both a better body and more academic credentials ultimately values each of these in order to have more ‘achievement’… and that achievement leads to the value of ‘personal fulfillment.’ Our values tend to get more abstract as we chunk them higher. Consequently, we find the more ‘concrete’ values often stem from the same ‘abstract’ values.

This can have enormous implications for motivation for workouts, especially when you realize that ‘having a nice body’ might be something you value for the same reason that something else holds value for you. It might occur to you that ‘health’ and ‘self-esteem’ – both derived from an improved body – can become tools that propel you toward more success in another concrete value.

A realization of these connections can light up your ‘motivation for workouts.’

‘Motivation for Workouts’: ‘Beliefs’ affect it too

In the years since I’ve practiced the principles I wrote down in HardBody Success, I’ve never missed a workout. Yes, you’ve read that correctly – not a single one of my scheduled workouts has been cancelled in the past few years. Sure, a relative handful has been postponed for a day or two because of unforeseen circumstances or scheduling conflicts. But my ‘motivation for workouts’ is so strong that I’d need to effectively reconfigure my brain in order to NOT get the workouts done. And I’m the same individual who used to miss workouts regularly and occasionally take three to six months off from bodybuilding just to get relief from frustration.

So what’s made the difference?

In a couple of words: ‘self-beliefs.’ Our beliefs about ourselves and what’s possible for us have a huge effect on our desire to follow through. These beliefs can work in conjunction with values to create an automatic impulse to take action. When you believe something (like changing your body) is possible, and that belief coincides with a high-level hierarchal value (having a nice body), motivation becomes a given.

To see how these things affect motivation, let’s look at an equation presented by Roger Constandse in his terrific book, The Psychology of Procrastination:

­­Perceived Value x Expectancy x Willpower/Sensitivity x Delay                                                          

Perceived Value and Expectancy are another way of expressing the concepts of ‘Personal Values’ and ‘Beliefs.’ More specifically, they’re the following concepts:

• Perceived Value – What’s important to you
• Expectancy – What you think is possible for you

These are in the numerator of the equation, along with ‘Willpower.’ Constandse defines willpower as a combination of one’s self control, discipline, and available energy.

In the denominator of the equation are ‘Delay’ and ‘Sensitivity.’ Delay is the amount of time it will take for a “payoff” to occur, while sensitivity is the degree to which delays affect personal drive.

As with any ratio, if we raise the numerator or reduce the denominator (or both) we’ll get a higher quotient. In this case, that would be more motivation. Since most of you who’ve read this far probably value ‘physique improvement’ a lot, it’s your expectancy (or self-beliefs) that likely hold the most room for improvement in the numerator. Conjunctively, it’s your ‘sensitivity to delay’ that probably needs to be reduced within the denominator.

‘Motivation for Workouts’: Raising Expectancy and Reducing Sensitivity

So how do we “raise our expectancy” and “reduce sensitivity to delay?”

Let me answer that with two words: ‘Effective training’ and ‘regular milestones.’ When we train effectively for physique improvement while continually seeing milestones of progress, our expectancy (belief that we can succeed) goes up. Likewise, when we see milestones recorded on paper (since they take longer to appear on the body) our sensitivity to delay goes down.

This is the deeper source of motivation for workouts. And it creates more motivational traction than any of the more superficial tips that have become ubiquitous.

“Carb Tapering”: An underrated fat-loss technique

A few years back, I had a coworker who was an admitted food addict. This guy’s food addiction, however, possessed an ironic twist: it had one element that’s considered a cornerstone of ‘lean eating habits’ and other elements that were so contrary to healthy eating that they completely cancelled out any benefits of that positive element. If the guy had just adopted the principles of ‘healthy food choices’ and ‘carb tapering’, he’d have probably been lean at sixty-plus years of age instead of fat.

The somewhat veiled (but positive) habit my former colleague displayed was that he ‘grazed’ on small portions of food throughout the day. Interestingly, this was an apparent manifestation of his addiction; he liked to starve himself in the morning and get through his evening work hours by ingesting “hits” of food, much like a cigarette smoker would hit on his or her burning tobacco sticks. Since small meals consumed throughout the day have long been touted as a fat loss tactic, this one positive habit probably spared him from outright obesity.

But his food choices were of the worst variety – a junk food diet with an emphasis on processed carbohydrates and sugar-packed sodas. As if that weren’t indulgent enough, he’d ingest these ongoing treats in a body-fat-producing pattern – one exactly opposite of the “carb tapering” design: He’d eat nothing for breakfast in the morning and then increase his carbohydrates throughout the day. I guess one could say he was “carb tapering” with the taper going in the wrong direction.

This is often an unintended practice for fat gain, however insidious, even when food choices are much healthier than those of my former colleague.

 

'Carb Tapering': Eating too many carbohydrates late in the day could be a bad idea...

 

‘Carb Tapering’: “The most important meal” saying is true

So what is ‘carb tapering?’

It’s a word someone’s created for the practice of eating most of one’s carbohydrates early in the day and then reducing their intake as the day wears on. It’s a terrific technique for helping shed and/or control body fat without feeling hungry or the psychological perception of ‘deprivation.’ It simply consists of shifting the macro-nutrient content of meals from ‘carbohydrate-dominant’ during the first half of the day to ‘protein/fat-dominant’ in the second half.

Using a ‘carb tapering’ technique starts with adhering to that old “it’s the most important meal of the day” principle: Eating a hearty breakfast. It’s amazing how many people don’t do this. It seems they have differing degrees of my ole’ colleague’s addiction – let the blood sugar run down to mere traces until lunch time and then enjoy the “high” of spiking it in the early afternoon. This habit seems especially prevalent among people with ‘sit-down jobs’ as they don’t feel the sensation of hunger from expended blood sugar until their morning hours are behind them.

Interestingly, ‘carb tapering’ can help alleviate this problem. The sensation of morning satiation (feeling full) most often comes from eating carbohydrates late at night. When we go to bed with high blood sugar, we naturally awake in the morning with high blood sugar (relatively speaking). It’s at least high enough at that point so as for most people to NOT feel hungry. This, of course, makes ‘tapering’ in the wrong direction (like my buddy) a self-perpetuating bad habit.

Carb Tapering’ and Your Leaner Body

The oft-cited reason for carb tapering being an effective fat loss technique is a sort of circadian effect on metabolism. In other words, we’re told to taper off carbs as the day wears on because metabolism slows down at night. Although metabolic rate does slow down while we sleep, my common sense can’t detect why it would slow down any time prior to that. Thus, my reasons for being an advocate of carb tapering put circadian metabolic changes during waking hours at the bottom of the list – if not being in a superficial category altogether. In contrast, I think carb tapering’s effectiveness is for two main reasons:

1. Carbohydrates are used most efficiently when most of them are consumed prior to when we need them for our greatest energy expenditure.
2. High blood sugar is antagonistic to nocturnal human growth hormone (HGH) release while HGH is the body’s most powerful fat burning hormone.

 

... if you ever want to keep and maintain a 'lean and hard waistline'
 

The first reason is fairly intuitive. Carbohydrates are our body’s preferred energy source. If our greatest daily energy expenditure takes place in the first three-quarters (or at least two-thirds) of our day, the most efficient use of carbs would occur if they’re consumed prior to and during this time – ideally in the first half of the day. That way, they’re at the ready and used up as they’re needed.

The second reason is more esoteric. About 50% of the body’s daily release of HGH happens during the deepest cycles of nightly sleep. Plenty of evidence suggests that high glucose levels can hamper the release of this fat-burning hormone.

‘Carb Tapering’ and the Cumulative Effect of Blood Sugar

One day when I asked my former work buddy if he ate breakfast in the morning, he shared an oft-repeated sentiment:

“Ya know… I just don’t feel hungry in the AM. I don’t start eating ‘til later in the day”

“Maybe that’s ‘coz you’re still eating when we leave this place at night”, I replied. “On top of that, you’re actually eating high carb meals in the late hours. That’s a prescription for not feeling hungry the following morning.”

I then pointed out something I’d noticed about him. His productivity at work was about doubled toward the end of the work day than it had been at the beginning. Why shouldn’t it have been? By quitting time, he’d cumulatively built up adequate glucose levels in order to finally be firing on all cylinders. Again, he was “carb tapering” with the taper going in a counter-productive direction.

I wonder how many of you have become consciously aware of the cumulative effects of daily blood sugar. As a bodybuilder, I’ve personally become sensitive to these things. Thus, I notice greater hunger between my first meal of the day and my second one as compared to my second meal and any subsequent ones.

My point is that this is all the more reason to “eat breakfast like a king” and “eat dinner like a pauper” (as they say). Above all, make sure you don’t inadvertently (or otherwise) have this idea completely reversed.

Some people contend that the principle of ‘calories in/calories out’ is the only one that matters for fat loss. But those of us who’ve experienced the benefits of carb tapering know better.

“How Skinny Guys Build Muscle”: Sorry… you’re really no different than anyone else

I’m going to say something that you likely won’t hear within the online “bodybuilding guru” circles. It ties into the topic of “how skinny guys build muscle.” It’s not for the purpose of being controversial or different; it’s just for the sake of dispensing the truth:

‘Everyone training naturally in bodybuilding is a hard gainer.’

That’s right, if you have trouble putting on muscle, you’re among much company. You’re not a special case because you’re starting with less muscle than the guy who seemingly exited the womb with cannon-ball delts and bulbous pectorials. Your “fast metabolism” isn’t what’s holding you back. And let me tell you something gleaned from personal experience: You’re having no more trouble adding muscle than the fat guy who’s sweating out his leg extensions a few feet down from you at the gym. He just has a bigger problem – he’s got little muscle AND he’s fat. You should feel blessed for your “terrible” ‘fast metabolism.’

I empathize with both of you; I’ve been fat and I’ve been skinny… and I’ve held little muscle in both circumstances. And what I’ve discovered about the “secret” for ‘how skinny guys build muscle’ is that it’s the same as how husky guys build muscle. It starts with replacing senseless and meandering training practices with those that are directed and effective. It begins with looking at what about 98% of people in gyms around the world are doing with the weights and… NOT doing THAT.

In other words, the biggest reason for the muscle building ‘hard gainer syndrome’ is ineffective training methods, not some intrinsic characteristic within slender guys requiring instruction titled “how skinny guys build muscle.” These ineffective methods come in a few varieties, from overtraining and under-training to the downright irrationally aimless tossing around of some barbells and dumbbells and calling it a workout.

So this leads us into the biggest key for “how skinny guys build muscle”… oh, and how everyone else builds muscle too.

'How skinny guys build muscle' is really no different than how anyone else does...

 

‘How Skinny Guys Build Muscle’: Let nothing go unrecorded

Over twenty-five years of workout experience has shown me an obvious correlation: It’s no coincidence that while vast numbers of underdeveloped guys don’t acquire the muscle they seek, the same vast numbers record nothing on paper. They don’t keep a workout log. They perform sets of this and sets of that with no accumulated recording of what occurred during that very important window of time in the gym. This is a huge mistake that results in ‘un-huge’ muscles (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

If you have an aversion to the idea of keeping a workout journal or log, consider this: I was once the biggest resister of this practice. I liked what I considered “workout spontaneity.” I believed that keeping a log or ‘journal’ would make my trips to the gym akin to something like doing homework. Even worse, during my occasional attempts at recording workouts, the records appeared to simply convert what was a major frustration (making no progress) from something nebulously transient to something glaringly concrete; the ‘workout on paper’ was confirming my lack of progress. I couldn’t deny it.

But this is the inverse effect of what makes the written records of effective workouts so powerfully motivating. When we experience weight training sessions that move us forward, real progress initially shows up solely on paper; it’s only an accumulation of such workouts that are eventually reflected by bigger muscles. This makes ‘progress on paper’ the best alternative to the only way of describing what’s practiced in its absence – “workouts by faith.”

There’s a caveat, however, to this major key in ‘how skinny guys build muscle’: The workouts and record-keeping technique need to be designed in such a way that progress will actually occur.

‘How Skinny Guys Build Muscle’: Coaxing and Micro-Feedback

Before discovering the ‘HardBody Success’ methods, my bodybuilding progress could best be described as follows:

“Two steps forward… one step back. One step forward… two steps back…”

If you’ve never experienced this, let me tell you, the effect can be worse than that of not working out at all. What could be more frustrating than putting forth effort at something while getting results that not only get you nowhere, but tease you along the way? This phenomenon is what causes too many muscle building aspirants to stop working out before ever getting the steady and predictable progress they could be enjoying.

The big secret to avoiding this ‘forward/backward’ effect lies in how bodybuilding workouts and records of those workouts are designed. They must be created and carried out in such a way that muscles are ‘coaxed’ (not forced) to grow and feedback from that coaxing is witnessed at a more “micro” level than is seen with traditional workouts. I call these two things ‘muscle coaxing’ and ‘micro-feedback.’ When combined optimally, they can create gains in muscle that are predictable and absent of frustrating plateaus.

To illustrate, let’s look at how most people train muscles, the effect of which being the ‘forward/backward’ result that so often leads to progress plateaus and premature conclusions that one is a “hard gainer.” Many people grab a workout weight with which they think they can do three or four “heavy” working sets. Either that or they begin with a lighter weight and “pyramid up” to a maximum workout weight – then pyramid back down. Adding even more ambiguity to this formula, they’re told by ‘bodybuilding experts’ that they should “add more weight whenever they can.” But without knowing exactly how much weight to add or when to add it, they end up with confusing feedback and an unbeknownst vulnerability to over-training.

 

... It requires 'volume overload', attention to feedback, and adequate recuperation

 

Let’s take a bench pressing workout as an example. In your typical “how skinny guys build muscle” instruction, a bodybuilding “expert” or trainer will tell you to use as much weight as possible for no more than three sets. You’re usually instructed to do these sets with one minute of inter-set rest and to give your second or third set an all-out effort. Following this typical ‘how skinny guys build muscle’ protocol, a two-hundred pound bench press workout weight used for three sets of eight reps will yield a 4,800 pound ‘total volume’ of weight moved.

3(200 x 8) = 4,800

Here’s the problem: These workouts are done in the “magical” and ubiquitously-instructed ‘one-week rest for each body-part schedule.’ The bodybuilding trainer will usually instruct you to add 5% working weight to the bar every couple of weeks for a compound exercise like this. That would be a ten pound increase to your bench pressing weight. If you could suddenly, magically perform three sets of eight reps with 210 pounds and a minute between sets, you’d move a total volume of 5,040 pounds.

3(210 X 8) = 5,040

This, of course, would represent a 5% increase in your bench pressing workout volume.

Is this realistic? Are you actually ‘coaxing’ the muscle into growth or are you attempting to force it? Are you getting micro-feedback of progress or will you eventually get macro-feedback of a big, fat plateau?

The best way to answer these questions is to analyze them in the bigger context. If we really could carry out this protocol while getting these types of gains, we’d get a 130% increase in our bench pressing workout weight after one year of training.

.05 x 26 = 130%

Keep in mind: In your typical “how skinny guys build muscle” program, this bench pressing workout is just one form of muscle tissue breakdown among others. The pectorals, arms, and delts that are used in pressing will be further broken down during sets of other pectoral exercises and upper body movements.

I’ll put this bluntly: This is overtraining in practical prescription form. It doesn’t take long for the natural bodybuilder to stop seeing progress on these type of muscle building programs. Since “experts” are at least implicitly aware of that, they often recommend periodization as the answer. This entails working out in one manner for a few weeks, then switching to a different protocol… then switching back to the first one again (or maybe over to a third one).

But periodization was originated by coaches of Olympic lifters in Eastern bloc countries. Does it ever occur to the “geniuses” who’ve transferred it over to natural bodybuilding that its real use among those competitive athletes was to coincide with their drug cycles? Athletes can’t stay on drugs indefinitely without at least experiencing the side effect of steroids. Therefore, they must cycle them in order to minimize side effects and optimize the benefits. Cycling one’s training protocol would be an obvious requisite to the cycling of steroids.

‘How Skinny Guys Build Muscle’: Conclusion

Anyone who tells you there’s a special method for how skinny guys build muscle just might try selling you beach-front property in Montana. I say that because the method for how skinny guys should do it is no different from how non-skinny guys (and gals) should. It requires coaxing muscles to grow and then allowing enough rest days between workouts that the tissue is repaired and slightly stronger than before.

Attempting to force muscles into growth is almost never effective for very long. All it takes is one workout done too soon for the amount of tear-down the tissue received and you could be in what I call a “recuperation deficit.” Subsequent workouts done with the same amount of stress and recuperation at that point will likely lead to an “overtraining spiral.”

‘Muscle coaxing’ with ‘micro-feedback’ recorded in a training log can prevent this and result in unstoppable gains. It’s what I cover in detail within the pages of ‘HardBody Success.’