i need some serious advice :(

G

gunit

0
my target has always been to gain mass but 2 weeks ago i took up kickboxing again, but these kickboxing sessions are extremely hard and burn off around 1500-2000 calories which makes it hard for me to gain mass, plus i only take in around 1500-2000 cal/day
is there anyway to still get gains and do kickboxing tues and thurs?
also can someone see the difference in these 2 pics?
thanks
 
not too much of a change in the two pics, least in my opinion. Nice build tho.... U can gain, u just need to be eating more , simple as that
 
If you're only taking in 1500-2000 kcals a day, you're not going to gain anyway. Eat more. And on your kickboxing days, eat more than that.
 
so my question is if i do kickboxing twice a week and lift weights can i still gain mass?
keeping in mind that i burn around 2000 cal every kickboxing session
 
gunit said:
so my question is if i do kickboxing twice a week and lift weights can i still gain mass?
keeping in mind that i burn around 2000 cal every kickboxing session
Click to expand...

Losing or Gaining Weight in a nutshell:

1) To lose weight- Calories consumed < Calories expended

2) To gain weight- Calories consumed > Calories expended

So, look at the question you just asked me and apply it. If you are burning an extra 2000 calories every kickboxing session you will need to consume that many calories in addition to the other calories you burn throughout the day. If you consume MORE calories than you burn, you have a CALORIC SURPLUS. So, to answer your question, yes, you can gain mass while keeping the kickboxing sessions.

P.S: Are you positive that you are burning 2000 calories every kickboxing session?
 
While pigging-out, also try this:

Cut-back on your weight-training program by doing just one or two sets per exercise with fairly low-reps, & make one set a warm-up set & the other set a very-slow set (each rep 10-seconds up, 10-seconds down... with 5-sec/5-sec on some short-range exercises like calve-raises) for 6-reps each (if you can do 10-reps then the weight is too light; if you feel that you need more, then do a few quick "isometrics" on your off-days: 3 sets of 1-to-2 seconds, or 1 set of 7-to-12 seconds is enough each iso~ exercise). Try it for 2-to-3 months & see how you look & feel, then take a week off & repeat once (afterward, rest a week, then switch to something else). Also weight-train just 2-or-3 days a week with at least one off-day between sessions while doing this. You'll get fairly good muscular strength & endurance, have more energy for your kick-boxing, & you'll most-likely keep some of those extra calories that you'll be consuming.

This should make it easier on you & will give you a change of pace
 
why would you want to do 10 sec concentric? it makes no sence, concentric should be done as fast as possible, eccentrics can be done slow. To recruit more monitor units and gain strenght you have to lift as fast as possible.
 
Well, it worked for the U.S. Olympic Weight-Lifting Coach, Bob Hoffman & his strength-athletes like Tommy Kono in the mid-1900's... so I believe that it will still work today (the effect will be different than doing a fast concentric -- but again, this is for a change of pace & it will limit the number of reps one can do which is the whole point of cutting-back for a few months).
 
Well, it worked for the U.S. Olympic Weight-Lifting Coach, Bob Hoffman & his strength-athletes like Tommy Kono in the mid-1900's... so I believe that it will still work today (the effect will be different than doing a fast concentric -- but again, this is for a change of pace & it will limit the number of reps one can do which is the whole point of cutting-back for a few months).

Better yet, he could do what Bob Hoffman had Bill March do: regularly hold a heavy-weight for 9-to-12 seconds in two or three "sticking-point" positions per exercise for the bulk of the training-week, then do one full-range workout at the end of each week. This was also done by an Italian boxer: both men packed on muscle-mass while gaining strength -- without wearing themselves out. Nevertheless, I recommend doing what I wrote first, first, then do the Bill March routine second (to help build-up the tendons prior to going heavy).

That's my opinion. :)
 
well, 50-60 years ago they dident know what we know about training today.

Hey, bodypart splits worked for Arnold in the 70s!
 
Knowledge is nice to have & we have discovered (or re-discovered) some better ways of doing some things since the 60's & 70's... but much of what has worked in the way of exercise since the Civil War for that matter will still work today (it's not all bad -- it's mostly good stuff). There's really not much new under the sun as far as results go: but a deeper knowledge of those results is perhaps new.

And body-part splits work well today, as they did in the 70's, & in the 30's, & in the 1800's as well. Full-body workouts work well too. It pretty-much all works.

The body will respond to whatever it's put through: do X, get X-result; do B, get B-result; etc, etc. No one exercise method gives every good result A-thru-Z. Fast concentric has its place... & so does slow concentric... & so does holding a weight in place.... etc.

Sometimes a little change-up does a body good. Slow concentric is most-likely something he hasn't tried much if at all -- the change will most-likely do him good... & he could do it with a split-routine or a full-body routine.

The advice I've given above should not do any harm. It may not give him X-result, but it will result in some benefit to his body/physique/health -- & with sufficient rest & good nutrition should result in some serious weight-gain.

I'll state my opinions regarding any given topic; & feel free to state yours, but don't feel free to jump on my back while doing so. Back off... take a deep breath... relax... enjoy the forum for the diversity it allows.
 
i just dont think you are giving good advice, so i will say so. To be strong you gotta lift fast, bigger weights means you can make you're muscles bigger too. Its pretty much something all trainers nowdays agree on, controlled eccentric, fast concentric (fast meaning you put all you're effort into it, since a max lift obviously wont be fast)

sure it will benifit in some way, but i think fast concentric would benifit more.

heres a good article on the subject.
 
Last edited:
I didn't think that Karky was being mean-spirited in any way. He is simply challenging your advice, which is pretty bad advice, frankly. It's nothing personal. There is just an abundance of people giving advice who are not qualified, and an abundance of people who don't know any better taking that advice. For those of us who see that happening, we have a moral obligation to intervene.

Read that article that Karky suggests. In fact, go through their article database and read up for a while. You're due for a paradigm shift. As you suggested to Karky, take a deep breath and relax.
 
SgtTTTT said:
The advice I've given above should not do any harm. It may not give him X-result, but it will result in some benefit to his body/physique/health -- & with sufficient rest & good nutrition should result in some serious weight-gain.
Click to expand...

-I'm sure he is not looking for a program that will simply "not do any harm." Why not prescribe something that will allow him to see the best results possible?
-Yes, things have changed since the early 60's and 70's. Training programs are made up of a lot more than the decision to workout on a split or a total body routine.
-The body may indeed react to everything, but not in a positive manner.
-Slow concentrics make little physiological sense when attempting to gain mass. While I don't entirely agree with always attempting to perform a concentric "as fast as possible", concentrics should be performed fast, not slow.
-Change does indeed do the body good. So why not change exersizes, set/rep schemes, or frequency? These will achieve better results than switching to slow concentrics.
-While these guys from the 1960's and 1970's were indeed pioneers of lifting, why not look to newer ideas? The economist Robert Malthus in 1776 decided that starvation, hunger, and disease were actually postitive influences and said that we should rejoice in them because they will keep the population in check with the food supply. He overlooked technological innovation. What if we still adhered to his ideas today, however? While some of the past advice can be used, newer and more efficient ideas have emerged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gunit,

There you have it. Different approaches to the same "problem." Choose one, choose the other, choose all, or choose none: it's your choice, your body, your time & effort (not mine, not theirs).

One last opinion on this topic: As you age you may find fast weight-training movements make you more prone to suffer a needless injury.
 
Last edited:
you wont get injured unless you compromise you're form. Lifting fast while keeping form intact, thats the key point.
 
SgtTTTT said:
gunit,

There you have it. Different approaches to the same "problem." Choose one, choose the other, choose all, or choose none: it's your choice, your body, your time & effort (not mine, not theirs).

One last opinion on this topic: As you age you may find fast weight-training movements make you more prone to suffer a needless injury.
Click to expand...


Nice choice of words. It's a nice bow out for someone who is in way over their head.

You also show your complete ignorance of training concepts with your last statement. I would argue (and win) that your approach is far more likely to wind up with injury.
 
Last edited:
sgtTTTT, I don't mean to gangbang you or anything, but the vast majority of anecdotal and scientific studies support karky, jp, and genius in their opinions on the speed of lifts.

A slow concentric has many disadvantages and little-to-no benefit. Much of what you're saying is in direct opposition to what is now accepted as fact.
 
jpfitness,

I just re-read your's & Karky's last post(s) on page-1 & noticed that I somehow skipped some important stuff you two wrote (i.e. the link, which I just book-marked for reading tomorrow) -- I must've been tired (like now... past my bed-time), & I appologize for that... perhaps I'll change my thinking tomorrow... I'll get back to you after I finish reading-up... thanks for the advice (I'm forever learning new & old ways)...

In the meantime can you give me a short explaination why slow or static contractions would be or could-be harmful (other than most folks tending to hold their breath during a static contraction)? I'm interested. I've used these techniques from time-to-time with success & didn't notice any harm (but perhaps I was mistaken... perhaps some things that have gone wrong were routed in these techniques).

Just so you know, my initial venture into physical self-improvement began as a kid during the 70's with three main influences: Universal Body-Building Course (via a comic-book ad), Bob Hoffman's book: "Functional Isometric Contraction," & my dad (about a 250-lb gorilla Korean-War Marine in a policeman's uniform who had his own ideas); later I went through Marine "Boot-Camp" & various military-related training including some officer training; I've gone through some formal rehab & a lot of self-taught rehab as well due to multiple injuries over the years (so I've given a lot of different exercises a try)... I've also had a fair share of training injuries (learning the hard-way on some things).

I don't mean to come-off as a wise-guy*... I just thought that some of your comments suggested that I was giving bad advice when it seemed quite sound from my perspective (now I know you think beyond-a-doubt that my advice is harmful & I'm curious to learn why/how-so) -- I'm in California & can't afford to go to your seminar in Arkansas, so I'm asking here on this forum.

* sorry if I came/come off that way (I'm just currently of the mind that what was good for a body last century is still good for a body today -- & yes, some things from last century turned out to be less-than-good & I accept this & I expect that we're probably still not perfect in our approaches else there'd be much more agreement & perhaps far fewer approaches)... learning is frustrating at times due to a lot of folks promoting some (various) thing & knocking others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top