paul e
-
Total Posts
:
186
-
Reward points
:
10
- Joined: 4/27/2005
-
Status: offline
|
RE: Get the pump
-
Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:43 PM
( #5 )
I just received my copy. It was a glossy, glitzy, well produced full color booklet called 'Get the Pump'.
For anybody who hasnt seen it, it contains 100 pages containing articles from some of the more well-known names in the industry, and pictures of some of the best known IFBB pros, demonstrating the key points contained in the articles..
I like looking at well pumped up physiques as much as the next guy. And the book shows plenty of muscle.. Loads of it.
But.. Im not real happy about the book in general. Why? Cause, underneath the allure of pumped muscles and huge, ripped pros, is a very slick marketing campaign, designed, primarily, to sell a product called Pump-Tech.
But what bothers me the most is that the whole focus of every article, and the book in general, which presumably is being read mostly by the Natural body builders who are buying the supplements BB.com sells, is a training method that I believe can only be used effectively by steroid pumping pros. Why is that? Two reasons.. One is the main premise, and its the name of the sixth chapter: 'TRAIN FOR THE MAXIMUM PUMP'. And the second is the training methods recommended. Here is chapter 6's recommended Back routine:
Seated Cable Row:
4 sets of 12-15 reps
Lat Pulldowns:
4 sets of 15 reps
Bent over dumbell rows:
4 sets of 12 reps
One arm standing cable rows:
3 sets of 12-15 reps
Deadlifts:
2 sets of 10-12 reps
Hyperextentions:
2 sets of 15-20 reps.
Total back sets: 19 sets. Avg of around 12 reps per set.
So, whats wrong with that? Frankly I dont think its possible for most natural bodybuilders to do this many reps for this many sets, for each body part, without seriously overtraining. The splits look something like this:
Mon: Legs; Tues: Chest; Wed: Off; Thurs: Back; Fri: Shoulders; Sat: Off; Sun: Arms.
And then, theres the premise: Train for the Maximum Pump. Whats wrong with that? The book stipulates, using pseudo scientific jargon, that the greater the pump you get during your workout, the faster your muscles will grow. why? Because the pump means more blood is circulating nutrients through your muscles.. But, I think its been well demonstrated that the pump, aside from feeling good, and looking good for the short duration it lasts during and just after the workout, has nothing to do with enduring muscle size and strength.. Nothing. For bb.com to be telling all its subscribers that training explicitly so as to maximize the pump is the best way to maximize muscle size on an enduring basis I think borders on the irresponsible. Then, theres the matter of the set and rep counts. Do we really think natural lifters can accomodate that much volume without overtraining? Havent we gotten beyond all this hype? Havent we been shown that essentially, less is more, and that overtraining is probably the single biggest detriment to growing muscle for natural body builders? How many of us have found that we really didnt start to see meaningful results until we forced ourselves to adopt a lower volume, higher intensity approach?
Why is BB.com preaching a training methodolgy that is aimed at Pro bodybuilders? Is the idea that, the higher the volume the trainee uses, the lesser the results, and hence, the more supplements he'll want to buy? I can understand why this emphasis on the pump is there: because it augments the marketing of that Pump-Tech product. And, because so many products are out there which hype the pump, this book just plays right into the hype. But why this training method? Maybe its because the more rundown and overtrained the lifter becomes, the more he'll be seeking out relief via supplements?
Im just stating my opinions here.. Im sure there are still natural lifters out there who actually believe and adhere to this type of approach, failing to draw the distinction between natural and drug induced gains and training methods... But for those who have studied the materials, its a little disconcerting to see a company we patronize take this approach
__________________ Paul E 5'10"; 34" waste; 15" pencilneck; 178 lbs, Currently doing natural stack of test, ATD, DHEA, ZMA, CEE
|