Finally,
the ratio between limb length and joint thickness can also come into
play. The smaller your joints are in relation to your limb length, the
more impressive any added muscle tissue will look.
So as you can see, someone can
have the natural capacity to build a lot of muscle, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that he'll have an easy time building a great physique. Shugart:
What about the ability to get really ripped? Seems to come a lot easier
for some people, though I don't believe anyone has an excuse for being
flat-out fat.
Thibaudeau:
Yes, some people have an easier time losing flab than others. It can be
due to better insulin sensitivity, a faster metabolism, or whatever.
The fact is that those guys will be able to attain a lean physique
without much effort. And oftentimes, they won't lose a lot of muscle
doing so. Shugart: Yeah, I hate those people. What about the rest of us? Thibaudeau: On
the other end of the spectrum, you have guys who need to diet super
long and hard to get remotely lean. These are the guys who are most
likely to fall off the wagon before reaching their ideal physique.
They're also the guys who risk losing more muscle mass while dieting as
they'll need to take more drastic steps to get extra lean.
We
also can't dismiss the psychological aspect. While I don't want to get
into a debate about the impact of genetics and learned behavior (I'll
leave that to behaviorist and Gestalt psychologists) the fact remains
that some individuals have a better psychological profile when it comes
to transforming their physique.
Whether this
profile is learned or innate is beside the point, but suffice to say
that strong-willed individuals who are good at following a plan and
refuse to fail have a much greater chance of success than those who
give up at the slightest bump in the road. Basically, you can have a
very physiologically gifted individual fail in attaining a great
physique simply because he lacks the mental fortitude to overachieve his way to success.
So
yes, there is such a thing as good physical transformation genetics,
but it's not just about being good at building muscle or not. Rarely
will you have someone who's a complete genetic blunder. We all have
something that'll play in our favor; the thing is to learn to play on
our strength and to try and minimize the negative impact of our
shortcomings.
But there is a ceiling
somewhere. There comes a point where the body has achieved its
trainability (reached its developmental potential), but rarely have I
seen individuals get there. Shugart:
Okay, that "ceiling" in muscular development does exist, but how do we
know where ours is? I mean, some guy may be saying "I have reached my
genetic peak," but in reality maybe his training or diet just sucks.
How do we know? Any predictors? Thibaudeau: Obviously,
overall body structure can give us a broad clue about ultimate
potential. Rarely will someone with the frame of a hummingbird be able
to get as big as an ox! But I really don't think that we can assess
with great precision what our ultimate potential is.
First of all, I do
think that everybody has the capacity to add 25 to 30 pounds of muscle
more than his "normal adult weight" is supposed to be. But it's kinda
hard to predict what "shape" that 30 pounds will take.
Different
muscle groups have different trainability levels (greater or lesser
growth potential). So even if we somehow can predict how much muscle
someone can add to his frame, it would be impossible to say exactly how
that size would look. On some individuals, 15 pounds might really look
like 40!
24 pounds of muscle added
We
could use strength gains as a basis for establishing development. As a
rule of thumb, strength has a trainability potential of around 200%. In
other words, in theory you should be able to triple your strength
compared to your "adult normal strength."
So, for example, if your untrained bench press max is 165 pounds, you should be able to increase it to 495. That's your theoretical maximum potential.
Now,
if you're currently bench pressing 300 we could say that you've reached
60% of your trainability potential in the pressing muscles. So (and
this is still in theory) you should have 40% of muscle growth left in
those pressing muscles.
As a more concrete
example, let's say that your preacher curl max was 55 pounds when you
started training, and your close-grip press was 135 pounds. In theory,
your maximum potential would be 165 on the preacher curl and 405 on the
close-grip press.
Now,
let's say that when you started out, your arms measured 13 inches and
currently your arms are 17 inches. Your preacher curl is 115 and your
close-grip press is 280. Gaining that first 70% of your potential
increased your arm size by 4 inches. Considering that you have another
30% to gain, you could expect another 2 inches in arm size.
Obviously
this is just a broad estimation and there are several weaknesses to
this type of assessment. But taken with your structure evaluation it
can give us a decent idea about how much growing you have left in you.
In
all honesty, I've yet to meet one guy who has really reached his
ceiling. When you get more advanced, gains come at a much slower pace,
but as long as you find a way to progress in your training, gains will
follow. Shugart: Very interesting
stuff. Now, tons of average guys come to you and want to make total
physique transformations. While they all have their individual needs,
what commonalities do you see? In other words, I bet most of them are
doing
a lot of the same things wrong. What are some of those things?
Thibaudeau: Pull up a chair, Chris. We could be here all day!
When
it comes to training, too many people focus on the wrapping instead of
what's in the box. By that I mean that more guys should strive to put
more effort in the gym and strive to progress on a systematic basis
rather than attaching themselves to the latest "in" program.
I'm
almost tired of saying it, but there is no magical program! The keys to
making your physique better and stronger are constant progression and
consistency. You can use the latest and greatest program, but if you
don't do everything in your power to progress from workout to workout,
you'll get very little out of it.
Strive to do
a little bit more every time you're in the gym: lift a little more
weight, do a few more reps, add a few sets, rest a little less, be more
focused, etc. and you cannot not progress over time!
Consistency
is another issue. I think that individuals, especially newbies, expect
an unrealistic rate of progression. They think they can add 20 pounds
of muscle in a month, and when they fail to do so they panic, change
their approach, or stop training altogether.
While
you should strive to improve yourself at every workout, you must
understand that adding muscle is a long-term process. To reach your
ultimate goals, you gotta keep at it for a long time!
When
it comes to program design, I see too many redundant exercises being
used. I really do believe that training and changing your body is an
emotional issue, which makes it hard to make rational decisions. We're
so afraid of short-siding our gains that we tend to include too many
exercises in our program. We're afraid of missing out on "the" exercise
that will make all the difference in the world.
Listen,
the body has a limited capacity to adapt to physical stress. If you
want to grow optimally you shouldn't go past that threshold. Avoid
redundant exercises. The exercises you select should complement each
other, not work more of the same thing. Shugart: Can you give us some examples of redundant exercises? Thibaudeau: Redundant
exercises are movements that train a muscle or group of muscles using
almost identical movement patterns. Normally, redundant exercises
revolve around using the same basic exercise but with different
equipment. For example, a Smith machine bench press and a regular
barbell bench press are redundant exercises.
Now,
there are several degrees of redundancy. The more elements of the
following list two movements have in common, the more redundant they
are:
A) Angle of pull/press. (Are you pressing
from a flat bench, 15 degree incline bench, 30 degree incline bench, 45
degree incline bench, 60 degree incline bench, decline, etc.)
B) Grip width or stance width
C) Grip type (pronated, supinated, neutral)
D) Movement pattern
E) Strength curve (e.g. free-weights, machines, and cables have different strength curves)
So
for example, a wide-grip flat bench barbell bench press and a wide-grip
Smith machine flat barbell bench press will be more redundant than a
flat dumbbell bench press using a hammer/neutral grip and a flat cable
bench press with a pronated grip.
In
the first example, everything is the same except for the equipment, and
the equipment used does have the same basic strength curve. In the
second example, the equipment, strength curve, and grip differ.
Since
the body has a limited capacity to adapt, we shouldn't waste our
adaptive energy on movements that are too similar. It's best to use
exercises that are as different as possible when working a muscle
group. Obviously, this is easier to do with complex muscle groups like
the chest and back than with simpler muscle groups like triceps and
biceps. Shugart: What about common mistakes you see involving diet? Thibaudeau: When
it comes to diet, consistency is a problem, but I wouldn't call it a
"mistake" because most people simply don't have the willpower to stick
to a diet day-in and day-out.
To me, a
mistake is doing something wrong, thinking that it's actually right. I
don't think that anybody actually thinks that wolfing down two pieces
of cake and six donuts is good for you!
The
truth is that a lot of people aren't consistent enough with their diet
to get where they want to go. They'll follow a solid plan for three
days and think to themselves that they earned that cake or that they're
improving fast enough to cheat without guilt. This is a recipe for
disaster.
Another problem is not knowing what's
bad for you. One of my friends was looking to lose a lot of weight, but
he just couldn't do it. It turned out that with each major meal of the
day he was gulping down two 32 ounce bottles of full-sugar soft drink.
That's 200g of sugar taken three times a day, or around 2400 calories per day only from soda!
The
thing is that he believed that sodas weren't fattening because it was a
drink! About 2400 calories, seven days a week is 16,800 calories, or
the
caloric equivalent of five pounds of fat! Shugart: That hilarious...
and sad. I've seen so many people screw up their body this way, and
they don't even realize it! I
helped a guy once who was taking fat loss supplements and using a
vicious lactic acid training program. Dude couldn't lose a pound. Turns
out he's guzzling Gatorade all day... while working at his desk job.
Thousands of worthless calories, and he didn't even think of reporting
that intake to me! If this happens at the T-Nation Physique Clinic,
we're going to have to fly to that guy's town and kick him in the
balls. Are you running a marathon? Playing football in Florida? No? Then why
are you drinking this crap, chubby? Okay, next physique transformation
topic: muscle memory. What is it exactly? Thibaudeau: Muscle
memory is the best friend of strength training marketing! I had a
hockey player gain 27 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks (20 of which was
regained muscle). I had a bodybuilder gain 18 pounds of muscle in a
month (mostly from post-contest surcompensation), and I had an Olympic
athlete's squat go from 225 to 500 in less than 6 weeks.
All
of these examples were due in part to muscle memory, but you gotta
admit that if you don't read the fine print it makes me look like some
kind of magician!
There is such a thing as
the plasticity of muscle adaptations. I don't like the term "muscle
memory" because it's really a misnomer, but the fact is that previously
gained muscle and strength is much easier to regain the second time
around. Furthermore, the longer you've had that added muscle tissue,
the faster you'll regain it once you get back to training.



http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1820995