Middle-Era Muscle
The LA Times reports that at the Beverly Center, one of LA's shopping meccas, Santa looks like this:
"Hunky Santa," as he's billed (aka Eli Wilhide), says he achieved his hunkiness with a combination of daily morning runs, a half-hour of cardio on the treadmill or bike (in the upper end of his fat-burning zone, as he points out), then up to 90 minutes of weight training, followed by more low-intensity cardio and some stretching. When he lifts, he does one body part a day, and uses either heavy weight for low reps, or lighter weights for high reps, depending on whether he's building or cutting. Oh yeah--he also loves crunches.
If you wanted get muscular and lean in the 80's, as I did, this kind of routine was what you used. Modern fitness aficianados would classify Hunky Santa as a kind of middle-era bodybuilding enthusiast, and they'd be pretty grumpy about it: he does fasted, low intensity cardio (gasp). He uses a split routine (gag!!). He uses a high volume of exercise (GOFF!!). And no mention of periodization!
At the moment, there's an upswell of smart trainers out there questioning almost all of those principles: if Hunky Claus were to swing over to T-Nation, say, and casually outline his routine on one of their threads, he'd be well advised to keep a fire extinguisher handy, because pretty soon he'd be engulfed in flames. I'd wager that they'd accuse him of using steroids, too, because the only way that such cockamamy routines work is if the person is regularly whacking massive amounts of testosterone into his veins.
I love T-Nation. The best writers and coaches in this field either have contributed over there or want to (subtle hint for T-Nation editors over there looking for fresh blood), and if you were to grab any one of them--say, one who staunchly advocates full-body routines, anaerobic energy work, and short, intense workouts--and show them Hunky Santa and his routine, that coach would probably shrug and say something to the effect of "Everything Works."
And I'd have to agree with them. In my accumulating years in the world of fitness, I've seen people make progress on the weirdest things: all-machine workouts. Weight training combined with long-distance running for muscle mass. Two-day-a-week fasts. Veganism. Slim-Fast. High Intensity Training. Plenty of stuff that people nowadays insist won't work that actually works--at least anecdotally.
This doesn't undermine the possibility that other systems may work better for more people, or be more effective or safe in the long run, or are more scientifically supported to build muscle or burn fat--just that there are lots of ways to skin that fitness cat, and if you throw yourself into almost any of them, you're likely to make some progress--maybe even impressive progress.
For the sake of discussion, however, I'll add that most people I know who have achieved Hunky Santa's level of conditioning, or something close to it, have done so using something like the seemingly-antiquaited system he uses: split system, medium to high volume, lots of low-intensity cardio. It's certainly not something I advocate for clients, or would ever do myself. It also doesn't sound like much fun--which, let's face it, is important--but for aesthetic goals, it appears effective.
What are other people's experiences or thoughts on this? Have we been too hard on those middle-era muscle guys?
0 recs |
8 comments
|
Comments
Im a firm believer in that what works well for some......
Doesnt always work well for others……For example…I have a buddy of mine I went to HS with. When were in High School we did the same off-season workout program for football. He’s a lanky guy 6’2 and Im more of a short stocky guy 5’10………We both did the same things when it came to weight lifting and the amount of running we did, However he would always make his gains on his speed and endurance and I always made more gains in the weight department. (Now diet/metabolism is probably the only thing that differed with us) The odd thing is though that we both would lift weights in the same range weight wise but he could just never put on weight…..and I could never get any faster…..I just always chalked that up to genetics…..
PIPE DREAM: Jim Harbaugh for the Bills next head coach.
by norcaliangelsfan on Dec 11, 2008 7:29 PM EST reply actions
Bodybuilding
I thought that was the cookie cutter recipe for bodybuilding…
But in the article he says he does pushups, pullups, lunges, squats in addition to the “one muscle group per day” split, focuses on free weights, and he likes to “mix it up” which could possibly be interpreted as periodization (okay, i’m stretching there). So it’s not all negative.
He’s also a nutrition major and sounds very disciplined on his diet, which sounds to be high protein, lots of fruits and veggies and lean meats. Looks like a very sensible diet. I think that’s probably the key to his look anyway, as a lot of people say that fitness is 80% diet (or 70, 85, 90%, etc. depends on the source)
Yikes
He does the egg white thing too :(
I wish these people could send me the yolks so I can eat them. Egg yolks are delicious!
Old Skool Splits
I’ve found that I put on mass a lot better with movement based splits. I am currently on a 4 day a week powerlifting plan. I have done the typical 3 day a week squat, bench, deadlift powerlifting before, for up to 8 weeks, but this time I made it 12 weeks, with two light weeks and one off week in there. With only one “pushing” workout a week, I felt like I was cramming too much in and giving myself too much time between workouts, so this time I added a military press day as a fourth workout. Its worked out pretty well. When you think about it, I’m really doing two days of dissimilar rear chain exercises and two days of pushing exercises.
I find that when I use whole body workouts, I have to keep the reps low and the sets few to give myself enough recovery time. They were good for me for staying strong and fit and not gaining weight, but less frequent, higher volume training seems to work better for putting on mass. It seems like working the same muscle a different way twice a week is sort of a sweet spot for mass. At least for me.
I first heard about an alternative to split routines when I read an article by Rachel Cosgrove in Women’s Health magazine. I can’t remember the language she used to describe this – something like ‘muscle pattern training’? Anyway, (as you know) it’s strength training that mimics the movements we do in everyday life (squat, deadlift, push, pull, twist). Some more research led me to Alwyn Cosgrove, Lou Schuler, and T-Nation. Needless to say, my entire outlook on fitness has changed since I read that article. When people say they’re “doing cardio today”, I want to launch into an hour-long diatribe. But I don’t. So I read your diatribes instead!
Anyway, if you have time, I’d love to hear from you on something … a few years ago Chad Waterbury wrote an article about a special way for women to train to keep a curvy figure (sans thick middle created by too much abdominal work). http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/sexy_female_training The workouts focused on outer thigh, butt, and shoulder training, along with some HIIT. This made sense to me, but I don’t know how to reconcile this training method with Schuler’s workouts in ‘New Rules for Women’, which definitely engage the ENTIRE body.
I know, I know, “everything works” – but if you had to choose one of these approaches for a female client, which would you go with?
p.s.
I’d like to add … that ‘Sexy Santa’ looks a little too skinny to me…
Training Women
Francie—this strikes me as an apples-oranges comparison: The “sexy female training” piece seems to me a quick-fix kind of article—a workout to try for a few weeks with emphasis on particular areas, along with Chad’s usual critical approach to many commonly-accepted principles.
NEW RULES FOR WOMEN, however, is a six-month (can’t remember the exact time frame) periodized program with everything you need from nutrition to warmup to the workouts in very detailed fashion. It’s a whole different animal.
I don’t think Cosgrove, Schuler, Waterbury or any trainer worth his or her salt would advocate training some areas at the expense of others except for a very short time and with a very specific purpose.
I will add, however, that Chad’s point about direct ab work has been largely vindicated—particularly with respect to crunches; you’ll notice that, with all the full-body moves, NEW RULES doesn’t include much in the way of direct ab stuff either.
by Andrew Heffernan on Dec 15, 2008 12:25 PM EST reply actions

by 







