TMUSCLE.com | 5 Things That Drive Me Nuts

5 Things That Drive Me Nuts
by Scott Abel

There are actually hundreds of things that drive Scott Abel nuts, but for the sake of relative brevity and our own sanity, we'd like to present just 5 of the things that make Scott chew his liver.

Here they are, in no particular order:

This one is a societal problem in general perpetuated by the powerful drug company lobbies that control politics and manipulate media. Specifically. It's a real crucial issue in the bodybuilding industry that has gone to insane levels. I've had people write me with questions like, "I started dieting 3 weeks ago, so when should I start using thyroid?" Say what?

And the way such questions are written so matter-of-factly illustrates an ongoing problem with bodybuilding and bodybuilders. The fact is the body prefers biology over chemistry in working out its own issues. Of course I'm not talking about a medical need for intervention. I'm talking about an "attitude" toward blatant chemical abuse in the name of what used to be a culture of health and wellness. What I've witnessed in the last 5 years is frightening to me.

Testosterone dosages have increased to multiple grams per week and this has led directly to the use of many medications totally unrelated to performance enhancement. Escalating Testosterone use has led to a real need for anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs, anti-inflammatory drugs, cholesterol lowering medication, blood pressure lowering medication, muscle relaxants, and sleep medication.

Many are using these meds on top of their ridiculous stacks. The expense to human physiology is huge.

This idiocy may make you sound intelligent in certain circles, but really it just means being part of a drug subculture similar to the heroin/crystal meth subculture. Right now certain web sites and experts would have you believe you need to combat every effect of one drug with another.

Now they use Benadryl to open receptors from clen use that has desensitized Beta 2 receptors. They use another drug to combat the increase in prolactin levels from Deca. And on it goes. It's ridiculous. You aren't chemists and you aren't pharmacists, and you certainly aren't doctors.

An amateur training for the World Drug Tested Championships wanted to hire me as a coach. He sent me a list of his stack — it included 16 different drugs.

I turned him down.

Champions aren't forged from a syringe! You may win a show, but so what? Of course I know I'm only speaking to people here who want to listen, but this mentality is not only dangerous but fruitless long term.

A few weeks ago Testosterone featured a photo of the original giant killer, Danny Padilla. Most who saw that pic saw him as a complete physique, hard as nails and in better shape than most of the polypharmacy drug users representing the masses out there in the modern era.

Danny was from a bygone era. In those early days, an off-season stack consisted of Deca and D-bol, while an on season stack consisted of Deca and Anavar. That was it.

Danny Padilla, just a little Deca and a little D-bol.

I will say again, and you will see me say this repeatedly in articles, "Heavy is not how much is on the bar; Heavy is how much stress a muscle is under."

The former is an external queue that has no meaning in and of itself. The latter is an internal performance indicator that bears fruit short and long term. As experts and trainees we need to stop being so one dimensional in our thinking.

The second problem with this assumption is that somehow people then equate load with intensity. In other words, I get letters where people "assume" they're training hardbecause they're training with heavy loads.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And there's also an expert bias that "strength training" is CNS training; hypertrophy training is myofibril training; and conditioning training is metabolic.

These are only categories of reference and they're not mutually exclusive. There exists this bias that high volume training is somehow lower intensity. Untrue.

Workload capacity can be improved to a point where tremendous volumes can be handled at high intensities. Once again, these need not be mutually exclusive, and to think that way is to misrepresent research and decades of real life, in-the-trenches experience.

Case in point: Eric Heiden.

I always use this example when doing seminars for people interested in Hypertrophy Training. Eric Heiden was a very special athlete. He won multiple gold medals for the US in speed skating. He also accomplished what most exercise physiologists would say is impossible. He won Gold in all the sprint events and the endurance events as well; kind of like winning a marathon and the 100-meter sprint in the same Olympics.

What he accomplished was truly spectacular. Eric's physique was also well known. At about 185 lbs he had 28-inch thighs at a time when no one even in bodybuilding could come close. The sweep on his thighs was just incredible and something any bodybuilder would kill to have. Because Eric was training for speed, power, and endurance, he developed a very unique training style that's been ignored to this day, I think merely because it's so hard, and goes against the grain of thought, that heavy is a matter of load only.

Twenty-eight inch thighs.

Eric was known for what I call ultra heavy training. Remember that I said earlier that heavy is not how much load is on the bar, but rather how much stress the muscle is under. Eric was known to do leg presses with 500lbs. No big deal. However, Eric did sets of 100s reps with 500lbs!

Now that's heavy, if you understand load, overload, and time under tension in an explosive sense, and not with this crazy tempo interpretation of such.

Eric was also known to squat 205 pounds, butt to heels...for 300 reps. His leg size, shape, density, and sweep were what every bodybuilder dreams of. Yet no one trains like this because they equate "heavy" with load, rather than stress.

The only guy that came close to adapting that kind of training for legs was Tom Platz, and I guess he didn't train heavy either, since he didn't do low rep percent max's near his absolute strength base.

I trained at home all summer and I did sets of squats with only a "Bodyblade" behind my neck for 5 sets of 100 reps, and then single leg BW lunges for 4 sets of 50 reps.

That was the beginning of my leg workout every other workout — no weights, and my legs have never been better.

I'm not sure where this one comes from, but it reflects a bias toward seeing our body as being on the same man made 24-hour clock that guides us from one day to the next. Quite simply our bodies do not work this way, on this time schedule.

This assumption draws two conclusions that are faulty at best. One is that you can somehow get fat in a day. Not true. Once we've re-programmed the body to be a fat burning machine, then you won't get fat in a day.

The other assumption is a negation of the hypertrophy process. This process is complex and metabolically expensive. Satellite cells will only fuse with the myocyte to create a bigger cell when very specific conditions are met. These involve a supercompensation effect. Cells must have full storage of nutrients and energy.

Smooth muscle cells.

Only at this point will the body build up actin/myosin components triggered from a training effect. This takes time and an understanding of creating supercompensation to energy stores within the cell. Once this happens and cells are properly hydrated, only then will there by a signal for higher concentrations of IGF 1 and 2, which will then, combined with other growth factors, create a bigger cell.

What all this means is that concentrating on always 'burning off' nutrients, neglects proper storage essential to real growth. Most dieting bodybuilders will tell you they're always hungriest on off days of training. This is essential biofeedback.

Hunger means two things — fat is being burned (hence the hunger signal), and the body is in "need" of something. This is a very simplistic extrapolation, but true none the less. On the Cycle Diet, my clients and athletes are instructed to take their cheat days, or spike meals on off days from training, and the reason is simple. It's so they can eat MORE, and store MORE.

Remember, once a fat burning metabolism has been established, then energy goes to where it's needed most. With proper training stimulus, this means nutrient supercompensation within the cells, which is exactly what the aim should be. Eating less on off days misses this entirely because once again the focus is too micro analytical.

Take a look at Andy Sinclair and firefighter Kevin Porter, both clients of mine:

Andy Sinclair

Kevin Porter

Both are on versions of my Cycle Diet. Andy was with me for less than a year when he scored two magazine covers. He loves the Cycle Diet because when he gets an opportunity for a photo shoot, he cuts out a cheat day or two and boom, he's as ripped as you see in this picture.

Then he's right back to the Cycle Diet with full-on cheat days and calorie-spike day as well. He makes constant improvements and always has ample energy.

The point is, he takes his cheat day on off days from training with the sole goal to eat as much as he can, not less.

To learn more about the Cycle Diet, check out my DVD, The Science Behind the Cycle Diet.

I'll admit it. I've seen my share of well known professional bodybuilders whose workout performance was less than impressive. Lately, though, there's been a mass attack on bodybuilding for all kinds of reasons unrelated to the obvious ones. (And I totally support most of those criticisms.)

I've criticized the consequences of conventional bodybuilding training over time and what it takes away from the body in terms of function, along with the loss of key components of athleticism and resulting neural confusion.

However this is a consequence of a type of training. There are consequences to most types of training. Runners for instance are the most injured people in the athletic arena and usually suffer prolonged downgrade of the sex hormones.

Plyometric training and getting carried away with plyometric training has led to more than one career-ending injury. Power lifters have numerous muscle imbalances and joint problems. And the list goes on.

But then other experts seem to attack bodybuilders for no other reason than some Napoleon complex. I've read more than one expert refer to bodybuilders as weak and how that said expert could out perform bodybuilders on strange and selective max lifts.

This whole thing strikes me as kind of strange. You may out lift said bodybuilder, but if it's me or one of my clients, you'll never OUT TRAIN us!

There's a difference between criticizing consequence and criticizing methodology. If you can't see the difference, then shame on you.

Most experts make great valid points about the limitations of body part training. However, you either believe in the SAID principle (specificity) or you don't. To criticize a bodybuilder for not having absolute strength in strange exercises makes no sense.

Hypertrophy training requires attention to higher rep ranges at specific joint angles and in limited planes and ranges of motion. Why not attack Tom Platz or Ronnie Coleman then, for not being as strong as power lifters of equal bodyweight, and therefore call them "weak."

Ronnie Coleman

While we are at it, why not criticize marathon runners for not having bigger legs, because after all they use them daily. Specificity is not a viable vantage point of selective bias. There are plenty of reasons to criticize bodybuilding training and the bodybuilding subculture, but claiming them to be weak, and using absolute strength as proof, is just more "expert bias" played out to the unaware consumer.

Using myself as an example in my latest MET training DVD, you can witness me doing 300lb seated rows and 150-pound one arm DB rows (not that weight matters), and these lifts are part of complexes.

Not bad strength for an old retired guy who's been clean for years. I just find that statement or conclusion that bodybuilders are weak to be a misrepresentation based on expert bias.

Once again, this is a misinterpretation of studying improper dieting practices of regular people and then applying it to athletes and active people. The original premise was based on the fact that many North Americans skip breakfast, eat a sparse lunch, and then get home and eat ravenously till bedtime.

Athletes do not eat this way. Also, there was some research that suggests that the overnight GH output was thwarted by carb intake before bed.

Much is missed with such assumptions. For one thing, once again there is no predisposition to store fat from any energy source in a calorie-controlled situation. Once fat burning metabolism has been established and calories are balanced throughout the day, then carbs before bed or at night can be a good thing.

I've followed this eating pattern for 20 years now. Ask any pre-contest athletes what one of the worst parts of prep is and they'll surely tell you it's the insomnia related to a low-calorie biological needs state. Understanding neurotransmitters goes a long way to a remedy for this situation. Many low carb dieters get weak willed and binge eat at night simply because of a lack of understanding of the above information and body processes. Or they could just be getting bad diet strategy advice.

The neurotransmitters in the brain central to this concern are from the catecholamine family such as dopamine, and more importantly serotonin. Serotonin in particular plays a crucial role in eating, sleeping and abiding natural circadian rhythms.

Having some carbohydrates at the last meal of the day will go a long way to regulating serotonin output to induce sleep, especially in a fatigued state.

Metabolic Drive, Complete: A perfect last meal of the day.

Once again, in a calorie-controlled situation — once fat burning metabolism has been established — there is no predisposition for your body to store fat from any energy source regardless of timing.

If you consider only the training affect and nutrient intake effect of diet on training, you fail to see all the other hormonal and biochemical interactions that various foodstuffs and macro nutrients influence.

GH, for instance, is also thwarted by insomnia or restless sleep. So this becomes a Catch 22 situation. For me as a coach, sleep does far too many good and essential things for recovery to be neglected by an oversight in faulty logic or dogmatic approaches to diet. If you want to be able to stick to a calorie deficit diet and get ample rest and recovery, then make sure there are some carbohydrates in your last meal of the day.

In the brief time before receiving this article and getting ready to post it, Scott's already submitted another 142 things that drive him nuts. We'll have to see if we post any or all of them. In the meantime, we hope putting them down on paper serves as some sort of therapy for him.

PUBLISHED
Discuss | Rate | Add Favorite | Print Version