Reply
Share |
Thread Tools Display Modes
Why is This So Hard to Understand?
 
 
John Peterson John Peterson is offline
Author
John Peterson's Avatar

Reply With Quote
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,049
03-07-2019, 03:13 PM
 
Hello Friends,

I'd really like your help and insights about this and so would every other forum member.

Please Read: http://transformetrics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18057


This is the part that apparently bothers people to realize that it is the truth.


Quote:
The fact is that if your desire is to become as strong and as heavily muscled as is possible You cannot achieve that objective with bodyweight exercise only.

Why?

Because it turns out that Peary Rader and others were correct that something happens physiologically in direct response to using heavier and heavier weights that cannot happen without it. Namely that if you are supporting hundreds and hundreds of pounds while squatting for example...your body will try to protect itself by becoming much thicker in your torso, hips, and legs in order to give you added leverage and stability to handle the demands that are being placed on it. You could do freehand squats till frogs grow feathers and not get the kind of specific thickness and strength that you would achieve doing sets of reps with two or three times one's body weight on the barbell. That type of demand will force the body to become thicker and stronger in the specific way in order to adapt...So if what you truly want is to be as big, thick and strong as you can possibly be then the truth is that bodyweight training, DVR, & Isometrics will take most people to their absolute natural best level of athletic perfection just as it does with a gymnast, but if you want to go way beyond that to the maximum in size and strength as relates to lifting weights then you will have to use heavy weights that force adaptation and if you want to take it far beyond that as some men obviously do, you will then have to take steroids and other forms of chemical enhancement. That is the truth.



Why is this troublesome to anyone to realize that you cannot become as thick in your torso with body weight and Isometric training as when carrying hundreds of pounds pulling down on you vertically.

C'mon now think about it. If you have hundreds of pounds pulling straight down you will absolutely compress your spinal discs which are the shock absorbers designed by God between the vertebrae. Do it long enough and often enough, you'll get to a point that the compression cannot be reversed.

Your body in trying to protect iself will become much thicker in order to support the weight that it is being forced to support. This added thickness will slow you down and diminish rather than enhance your body's strength in direct relationship to itself. This is why Bruce Lee switched to Isometrics he wanted maximized strength without added bulk. The added bulk may be good if you are a lineman on a football team but it will do nothing in terms of enhancing your body's strength in direct relationship to itself. For example, Jack King told me about a guy at his gym that could squat with over 500 and thought that performing 100 bodyweight squats was a joke and yet when he pushed himself to do that many over the course of 10 minutes he was exhausted and could barely walk the next day. The same is true with Push-Ups compared to Bench Presses. in terms of functional strength in direct relationship to your own body you can forget it. Adding tremendous weight to torso, glutes and thighs will diminish your strength to bodyweight ratio for all exercise such as Push-Ups, Pull-Ups, and Squat. You caan become much stronger in the amount of weight you can move outside of yourself but in terms of creating strength/endurance in direct relationship to your own body you can forget it because that is diminished and not enhanced.

For the above reasons you cannot get as 'big' with bodyweight and isometrics as you can with weights, steroids, and overeating but for anything other than lifting more weight or being a huge pro-football lineman or huge pro wrestler it is non functional weight and if you happen to be an Olympic style wrestler or boxer who wants to maximize functional strength to bodyweight at a lighter weight class the weights will not compare to what you can accomplish with Isometrics that make the muscles far stronger and denser without adding a great deal of body weight. Look again at some of the bodybuilding freaks that Michael Beasley pointed out and realize that it is NOT possible to get like that without weights, steroids and overeating. Not Even remotely.

Now, Please enlighten me and tell me WHY this is hard to understand.

---John Peterson
 
 
Share |
 
 
Michael Beasley Michael Beasley is offline
Senior Member

Reply With Quote
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 401
03-07-2019, 07:10 PM
 
Easy to understand Brother John, well explained!
 
 
Share |
 
 
lionking lionking is offline
Senior Member

Reply With Quote
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 179
03-07-2019, 10:05 PM
 
https://excelsiorgroup.co.uk/wp-cont...loads/gama.jpg

I know I'm the main antagonist, so I'll explain my thought process. First, you have to take steroids and hormones off the table. They do create freaky, unnatural growth, no argument from me at all. But I see people who have built extremely massive physiques through bodyweight calisthenics and I ask myself if they could have built even more muscle if they had lifted heavy weights. The answer is no. The link I posted above is a picture of the great Gama, a famous Indian wrestler who did thousands of bodyweight squats and push-ups each day. I honestly can't imagine his insanely thick legs could have been bigger if he had squatted with heavy weights. I also cannot imagine Herschel Walker any more muscular had he lifted heavy weights. High rep cals take much more time and discipline but they maximize muscle growth in my opinion.
Ps. John, I know you don't like guests posting links but this one is innocent. Thank you.
 
 
Share |
 
 
ezekial1925 ezekial1925 is offline
Legacy Member

Reply With Quote
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 238
03-08-2019, 09:35 AM
 
This was clarified to me the other day. I thought Superbeast articulated it perfectly! Lol!
 
 
Share |
 
 
John Peterson John Peterson is offline
Author
John Peterson's Avatar

Reply With Quote
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,049
03-08-2019, 09:37 AM
 
Hello Lion King,


C'mon if there is anyone that believes that one can reach the epitome of natural development with bodyweight and Isometrics I AM THAT GUY. Read my books and view my own photos.

What I have been very clear about is that to go beyond that requires excessively heavy weights along with steroids and growth hormones.

For an example I will refer to someone that Jack King knew very well. That man was Paul Anderson. Jack told me that Paul was so far beyond anyone else naturally at 5'9" and 300 pounds that he could start with more than 400 pounds on the squat and with his already amazing size and strength took it up to over 360 poundss and more than 900 pounds on the squat. My point is that Paul was already more massive than the Mighty Gama when he started but for him (Paul Anderson) to take it beyond his natural limit he turned to heavy weights. He had to or he would not have reached over 900 in the squat. And as hard as it may be to believe even someone like Gama at 5'7" and 260 would have been even bigger had he done what Paul Anderson did. So let me clarify...There is a natural limit that one can reach with bodyweight, isometrics, and superior nutrition. To go beyond it requires a method of forced adaptation beyond body weight and natural hormone production and that is done through heavy weights and steroids.

Body weight calisthenics and Iso-Dynamic Exercise will take you a long way as I am a testament to BUT to take beyond your natural limit requires unnatural training. I'm shaking my head and not understanding why this is not obvious to you. Aren't you aware that there were a great many bodybuilders from the old days that literally started out with Charles Atlas's system and took it to the limit of their natural development and then turned to weights in order to go beyond it? Why do you suppose that Weider, Lurie, Rader, and Hoffman all criticized Charles atlas and his methods? It was because there really are natural limits to development that require unnatural training to take further. Example: I was running Lake Calhoun with my friend Bryant and a freaky guy by the name of Jerry Jones came up to me and asked me, " What do you do to look like that?" I told him "Charles Atlas". I was 5'10&1/2" and 182 pound. He then said, ' Under my care , I could have you 40 to 50 pounds heavier and the Mr. America within 2 to 3 years. The guy looked like a freak and I said, "No!" There was no way I'd give up the shape, strength, physique and fitness I'd achieved through Atlas's methods for my size to look like a friggin' freak. Could I have taken him up on it? Damn right I could have and Bryant did and I have written many posts about that.

Here's the deal, your a good man lion king and you have a right to your opinion but on this one I know you are wrong. There is a limit to a man's natural, God given perfection and the only way to go beyond it is to do the the heavy weights and steroids. please look at the video clip Michael Beasley posted and you'll see that every one of those guys took their development far beyond the size and weight of Herschel Walker and the only way that could have done that was with weights and steroids. had any of them followed Mr. walker's methods exclusively they would have not reach their freakish goals. Mr Walker is 6'1" and 225 and for him to have packed another 50 pounds of muscle onto his frame which he could have done would have required weights and steroids which he did not do. After all, he achieved his natural limit and there was no reason to go beyond it.

---John Peterson


P.S. Lion King, I regard you as a friend and not an antagonist. Please reread everything I have written and you'll see that we agree about how far one can go with natural development. Using my friend big Jim Forystek as an example, I agree that he took his development to the maximum at 6'1" and 275 to 280 pounds. Jim went so far beyond the normal, naturally, by using his method that is identical to Atlas's that it's hard to believe. At 275 pounds he was/is massive. Believe me, men could take steroids, growth hormones and you name it and not come close to what Jim achieved naturally without ever going beyond 100 daily push-ups (that tells you how intense he made the other self resistance exercises to achieve that kind of mass and strength) and natural nutrition. BUT don't kid yourself, as powerful and massively developed as Jim is, he could have easily added an additional 75 to 100 pounds by using steroids and weights to bulk up to 350 to 375 like Paul Anderson. BUT Jim had the good sense to not do that and as a result he can still do everything he did as a young man. Why? Because the methods Jim and I follow and teach do not bust up you joints or compress one's spine.

Last edited by John Peterson; 03-08-2019 at 10:31 AM.
 
 
Share |
 
 
monty monty is offline
Senior Member

Reply With Quote
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,123
03-08-2019, 11:46 AM
 
So from my College days taking anatomy you have Ectomorphs, Mesomorphs, and Endomorphs. I was an Ecto for years when I was an Elite runner at 6'1" 145 pounds now 170. Now I am a Meso.
I just do not get the getting big stuff. I would rather look like an MMA fighter or 400 meter runner or Special forces than a big swoll dude. By doing the body weight and Iso Belt I feel my physique is right where it should be. If I was an Endo then my body would adapt and find its proper size.
Just my two cents.
Just using weights look different than the guys doing body weight and Isos.
Monty
__________________
"The really great man, is the man who makes every man feel great"
 
 
Share |
 
 
John Peterson John Peterson is offline
Author
John Peterson's Avatar

Reply With Quote
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,049
03-08-2019, 12:00 PM
 
Thanks Monty,

You and I are on the same page. There is no way that using weights will give you the kind of complete conditioning of strength/endurance to bodyweight ratio as mastering body weight and isometric contraction. But best of all body weight and isometrics protect the body from injury and will not cause it.

STILL, if some guy really wants to be huge like the bodybuilders he'll have to use unnatural means to achieve it.

Like you, my physique is as good as ever and I'm in my 67th year. Why is that a big deal? Because it means that you and I are stimulating maximum hormone production without any of the compression or injuries to joints, ligaments,tendons and spine as is caused by reliance on weights and steroids.

---John Peterson
 
 
Share |
 
 
blackbelt blackbelt is offline
Legacy Member
blackbelt's Avatar

Reply With Quote
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Battle Creek, MI
Posts: 1,634
03-08-2019, 12:12 PM
 
I was just talking with a friend the other day, saying when my brother first became a police officer, we wanted to get “big”. For him, it was at least partly an intimidation factor. The thought being that “criminals” wouldn’t give a larger officer as much flack. He got it in his head that he HAD to use “weights” in order to achieve that. So, he did. He also consumed protein supplements and “weight gainer” formulas. In the end, he at least got closer to his goal. However, he also acquired stretch marks along the way.

For whatever reason, I’ve NEVER quested for size. I’ve always wanted to be as strong as I could be for my size. The correct application of the methods we promote here have done exactly that, when I’ve prioritized my time and energies to using them.

As with anything, there are numerous ways to apply any exercise method. I did the weight thing in my younger days. Actually, for me it was a Bow-Flex. During one particular summer, I hit that using higher reps, just about every day. I also rode my bicycle along a particular route as fast as I could. The result was definitely a change in my physique and appearance. However, I’ve achieved more using “our” methods in less time, and it was more functional, at least in my opinion.

There’s no doubt that one can get into GREAT shape by doing what John teaches. But, if you want something more, you’re going to have to do “extra” things.

That all being said, I’ll take the results from the methods promoted here ANY day.
__________________
Train a little, or train a lot, but TRAIN.

Rob
 
 
Share |
 
 
Andy62 Andy62 is offline
Senior Member
Andy62's Avatar

Reply With Quote
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,934
03-08-2019, 12:54 PM
 
Today's steroid medicated bodybuilders look like freaks and they are physically nonfunctional under real world conditions
 
 
Share |
 
 
bennyb bennyb is offline
Legacy Member
bennyb's Avatar

Reply With Quote
Send a message via Skype™ to bennyb
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Coeur D'Alene, ID
Posts: 705
03-08-2019, 01:06 PM
 
Even with bodyweight exercises, mass can only be reached so far. I'll admit I don't have six pack abs and have the body like Gama as someone previously showed here but I'm a bigger guy than many here at 5'10 and roughly 255 or just slightly under. In 2017 I was at my max weight 275 lbs and it didn't feel right and was still training everyday. Losing that weight within that period of time helped my conditioning and overall strength.

At one point I was doing 500 Squats a day for a couple weeks and from a timing standpoint I hit 500 in under 13 minutes. Hit 1000 on my 33rd birthday in 33 minutes doing 10 sets of 80 Squats and 20 Jumping Squats back to back. Since I was in my late teens, I always had a thicker bone structure and was no where near the shape I'm in now.

The point I'm making is, whether you're 150 or 250, bodyweight exercises can pack on mass if you do it right. To go beyond that with the weights, it works the body in a different manner as you guys may know. Moving heavy weight will pack on mass in the places you want to put mass on but I've also seen guys as small as John move decent weight that is unbelievable so in the context of how weights are used in application, steroids and weights have their limits as well. You can get as big as possible through weights and steroids but it all depends on where you want to be in terms of the size one desires. Many athletes who have used steroids aren't as big as bodybuilders, way more shredded often times but in today's time you won't always know the difference.

When it comes to certain athletes if you want to really compare differences, look back on Dan Severn and Ken Shamrock. Both in their prime was tremendous wrestlers and can go the distance with just about anybody but Ken had far less bodyfat and far more muscle than Dan ever had but yet Ken was smaller by 15 lbs at peak weight than Dan was. Both had incredible conditioning in their time.

When it comes to bodybuilding, the majority is Size, Size, Size. Try to be as big as possible. It's a twisted way of comparing to Sumo Wrestlers, just the opposite where it's put on so much muscle as oppose to just pure weight. They both have limited endurance. You can only put on so much size before it wear and tears on your nervous system. When you add in a bunch of stuff with steroids, like other drugs, it's a cocktail of death.

Just with bodyweight exercise, you can only do so much. You can have greater endurance and natural muscle size from bodyweight but it will hit a peak and it's only a matter of time before severe injury will occur when you try to go beyond that limit. You can still be big and be healthy but to an extent.
 
 
Share |
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


Bronze Bow Publishing Copyright © 2008 Bronze Bow Publishing. All Rights Reserved.