MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Lawrence Neil - Practitioner of Drew Bate HIT Bodyweight Training
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

acas1959

Lawrence Neil of Corporate Warrior HIT podcast fame is a practitioner of Drew Bate HIT Bodyweight Training "Project Krapos" system.

TSC neck extension
TSC neck flexion
Push-up
Chin-up
Single legged squats
Pike-push up
TSC simple row
Prone trunk extension
Crunch
Heel raise

Cheers
Open User Options Menu

Lioncourt

He's lean, but I couldn't tell he's ever worked out anything but his abs.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

acas1959 wrote:
Lawrence Neil of Corporate Warrior HIT podcast fame is a practitioner of Drew Bate HIT Bodyweight Training "Project Krapos" system.

TSC neck extension
TSC neck flexion
Push-up
Chin-up
Single legged squats
Pike-push up
TSC simple row
Prone trunk extension
Crunch
Heel raise

Cheers


Steroids
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

acas1959 wrote:
Lawrence Neil of Corporate Warrior HIT podcast fame is a practitioner of Drew Bate HIT Bodyweight Training "Project Krapos" system.

TSC neck extension
TSC neck flexion
Push-up
Chin-up
Single legged squats
Pike-push up
TSC simple row
Prone trunk extension
Crunch
Heel raise

Cheers


==Scott==
I guess this is supposed to be funny? It's Drew Baye not Bate and Kratos not Krapos but I guess that's the Joke and yes no one could naturally be that big with out ape growth hormones or something.
Open User Options Menu

1958

Texas, USA

You critics should post pictures of yourselves.
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

1958 wrote:
You critics should post pictures of yourselves.


Who are you reffering to specfically?
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

1958 wrote:
You critics should post pictures of yourselves.


----Scott----
Type in the Scott Report thread to see me. I wasn't questioning the guy who is in the picture as much as who made the post.
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

I like Lawerance, and kudo's to him for doing what he does, hes had good guests on and doesnt pussy foot in his questioning.
But on his site, it states one can optimise MUSCLE GAIN, fat loss and overall health with just one 15 workout per week. On the FB page its worded slightly differently, it says "build muscle, lose fat and boost fitness in only 15 mintues per week". I agree with the latter to a degree. But i disagree that one can optimise muscle gain with 15 minutes of training per week.

Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

sirloin wrote:
I like Lawerance, and kudo's to him for doing what he does, hes had good guests on and doesnt pussy foot in his questioning.
But on his site, it states one can optimise MUSCLE GAIN, fat loss and overall health with just one 15 workout per week. On the FB page its worded slightly differently, it says "build muscle, lose fat and boost fitness in only 15 mintues per week". I agree with the latter to a degree. But i disagree that one can optimise muscle gain with 15 minutes of training per week.



it all depends on their own definition of fitness
and what their definition of overall health is

Open User Options Menu

backtrack

Looks anorexic to me - come on.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

sirloin wrote:
I agree with the latter to a degree. But i disagree that one can optimise muscle gain with 15 minutes of training per week.


I see it like that too ... the average person looking to look and feel better will benefit from 15 minutes of exercise but you won't maximize muscle like that. But maximizing muscle I'm talking the 'bodybuilder' look.

If you'll notice HIT has gotten away from addressing those who want that from training and now try to attract the housewife and men with pot bellies who just want to slim down.
Open User Options Menu

Lioncourt

sirloin wrote:
I like Lawerance, and kudo's to him for doing what he does, hes had good guests on and doesnt pussy foot in his questioning.
But on his site, it states one can optimise MUSCLE GAIN, fat loss and overall health with just one 15 workout per week. On the FB page its worded slightly differently, it says "build muscle, lose fat and boost fitness in only 15 mintues per week". I agree with the latter to a degree. But i disagree that one can optimise muscle gain with 15 minutes of training per week.



Perfect example of someone that?s drank the Body By Science koolaid despite any evidence otherwise. I can?t listen to his podcast because every interview is so slanted towards trying to prove Lawrence?s preconceived notions on exercise.

Open User Options Menu

StuKE

I have been looking into calisthenics and bodyweight training again lately, not with a view to doing it, but it does catch my attention from time to time. There are some very impressive physiques in the calisthenics world, BUT, I would say those physiques are only on the top tier guys, and even then, there are many top of the pile guys who don't have the eye catching physiques. In fact, the top calisthenics physiques won't really compare to the top natural bodybuilders but then, that is not really their aim anyway.
We can even use gymnasts as an example, how many times have Zi read of how great their physiques are... Well yes, sometimes they do have great physiques, but even at the top level, there are plenty of guys with minimal physiques.

This brings me to the point, I was thinking of 'Coach Wade' and Convict Conditioning, specifically how he advised working on a small number of exercises and progressions in those exercises, and how, once you had progressed to the hardest progressions, you would be built like a ... I forget his words, but he was basically saying you would have a lot of muscle. Well, one of those exercises was the handstand press up, with the holy grail being the one handed handstand press up. Many questioned if this was even possible, nobody in the forums seemed to have ever seen footage of this exercise. Yesterday I watched a guy do these on You Tube. This guy, who goes by the name 'Simonster' is without a doubt a phenomenally strong guy, he also has a decent physique - though better in action that in videos where he is sat there talking, but despite him being able to do these unbelievable moves, he does not have huge muscles.
I am not taking away from him, I have a ton of respect, even awe for what he does, but the truth is, you cannot rely on ANY exercise to create a great physique, the best bet by far is using the weights.

Spare a few minutes to watch this anyway, pretty incredible,

https://m.youtube.com/...h?v=Q69nII2xTXk
Open User Options Menu

LawrenceCW87

Hi guys,

Thanks for the free traffic :D

I thought I would respond to some of your comments here.

Sirloin - Great user name :D. Thanks for the podcast kudos. Fair point re improving vs optimising muscle gain. What I believe based on my podcast, personal exp, and the literature is that a BBS 15min workout will get most people what they can get in terms of muscle gain. I've tried HVT in the past and I'm currently doing HIT 2 or 3 times per week for an N=1 but I think that, at the end of the day, genetics determine response. I think perhaps 2 sessions a week may be better for some but I still think we're slicing the ham very thin. However, I am talking to Dr Brad Schoenfeld again soon and I'm ALWAYS open to new evidence that may support the contrary. All I care about is what works and the truth.

Dan_the_man - I've attached another pic of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm very happy with my physique. Again, loads, freq, diet, etc ain't going to make much of a difference. These are my genetics.

Lioncourt - Clearly you haven't listened to my podcast very much. I've interviewed several guests who somewhat oppose HIT (Dr Brad Schoenfeld, Dr Andy Galpin). And Brad joins me for a Part 2 soon. I admit that at the start, I was quite dogmatic about BBS HIT. But hey - we all live and learn :D. My podcast episodes are crystallised thoughts in time. Not much I can do about that. And I always encourage listeners to take what I and my guests say with a pinch of salt and N=1. But back to your point, I've actually been challenging BBS a lot recently with my interviews with Dr Ted Naiman. We're talking about daily HIT workouts! :D So it's not quite the perfect example, as you put it, I'm afraid.

StuKE - interesting comment and observation. Personally I don't think the mode makes a damn bit of difference. Training with enough effort / to failure seems to invoke all it can regardless if it's BW, free weight, machines etc. I just don't think natural hypertrophy optimisation is anywhere as near as complicated as we make it. BUT if anyone has evidence to show otherwise, please share! However if we're talking about adding another 5%, not sure if I'm that interested ;-)

Thanks for your attention!
Lawrence

Open User Options Menu

sirloin

LawrenceCW87 wrote:
Hi guys,

Thanks for the free traffic :D

I thought I would respond to some of your comments here.

Sirloin - Great user name :D. Thanks for the podcast kudos. Fair point re improving vs optimising muscle gain. What I believe based on my podcast, personal exp, and the literature is that a BBS 15min workout will get most people what they can get in terms of muscle gain. I've tried HVT in the past and I'm currently doing HIT 2 or 3 times per week for an N=1 but I think that, at the end of the day, genetics determine response. I think perhaps 2 sessions a week may be better for some but I still think we're slicing the ham very thin. However, I am talking to Dr Brad Schoenfeld again soon and I'm ALWAYS open to new evidence that may support the contrary. All I care about is what works and the truth.

Dan_the_man - I've attached another pic of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm very happy with my physique. Again, loads, freq, diet, etc ain't going to make much of a difference. These are my genetics.

Lioncourt - Clearly you haven't listened to my podcast very much. I've interviewed several guests who somewhat oppose HIT (Dr Brad Schoenfeld, Dr Andy Galpin). And Brad joins me for a Part 2 soon. I admit that at the start, I was quite dogmatic about BBS HIT. But hey - we all live and learn :D. My podcast episodes are crystallised thoughts in time. Not much I can do about that. And I always encourage listeners to take what I and my guests say with a pinch of salt and N=1. But back to your point, I've actually been challenging BBS a lot recently with my interviews with Dr Ted Naiman. We're talking about daily HIT workouts! :D So it's not quite the perfect example, as you put it, I'm afraid.

StuKE - interesting comment and observation. Personally I don't think the mode makes a damn bit of difference. Training with enough effort / to failure seems to invoke all it can regardless if it's BW, free weight, machines etc. I just don't think natural hypertrophy optimisation is anywhere as near as complicated as we make it. BUT if anyone has evidence to show otherwise, please share! However if we're talking about adding another 5%, not sure if I'm that interested ;-)

Thanks for your attention!
Lawrence



Hey Lawrence, hows it going:)

Yeah fair points, i trained using that appoarch for 20 years, it does work, but for me upping my frequency (5-6 brief workout per week / Art De Vany style) took me to new heights, its much like Andrew Shortt said on your show, i.e., with regards to ekking out those last 10-15% of possible gains.

This being said, ive just recently dropped my frequency back to just once or twice per week due to other commitments, but have upped my volume somewhat in these workouts. So it'll be interesting to see if theres any muscle loss. I keep a log here so ill provide some evidence either way.

The kudo's is well desevered, am looking forward to the up and coming Doug Hollands interview:)

Btw, if your ever in the North and looking for a good spot to train, i train at North Down barbell club near Belfast, owned by Belfasts strongest man Phil Morgan. Great gym, has low friction equipment, strongman equipment etc.

All the best
Rob

Open User Options Menu

acas1959

LawrenceCW87 wrote:
Hi guys,

Thanks for the free traffic :D

I thought I would respond to some of your comments here.

Sirloin - Great user name :D. Thanks for the podcast kudos. Fair point re improving vs optimising muscle gain. What I believe based on my podcast, personal exp, and the literature is that a BBS 15min workout will get most people what they can get in terms of muscle gain. I've tried HVT in the past and I'm currently doing HIT 2 or 3 times per week for an N=1 but I think that, at the end of the day, genetics determine response. I think perhaps 2 sessions a week may be better for some but I still think we're slicing the ham very thin. However, I am talking to Dr Brad Schoenfeld again soon and I'm ALWAYS open to new evidence that may support the contrary. All I care about is what works and the truth.

Dan_the_man - I've attached another pic of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm very happy with my physique. Again, loads, freq, diet, etc ain't going to make much of a difference. These are my genetics.

Lioncourt - Clearly you haven't listened to my podcast very much. I've interviewed several guests who somewhat oppose HIT (Dr Brad Schoenfeld, Dr Andy Galpin). And Brad joins me for a Part 2 soon. I admit that at the start, I was quite dogmatic about BBS HIT. But hey - we all live and learn :D. My podcast episodes are crystallised thoughts in time. Not much I can do about that. And I always encourage listeners to take what I and my guests say with a pinch of salt and N=1. But back to your point, I've actually been challenging BBS a lot recently with my interviews with Dr Ted Naiman. We're talking about daily HIT workouts! :D So it's not quite the perfect example, as you put it, I'm afraid.

StuKE - interesting comment and observation. Personally I don't think the mode makes a damn bit of difference. Training with enough effort / to failure seems to invoke all it can regardless if it's BW, free weight, machines etc. I just don't think natural hypertrophy optimisation is anywhere as near as complicated as we make it. BUT if anyone has evidence to show otherwise, please share! However if we're talking about adding another 5%, not sure if I'm that interested ;-)

Thanks for your attention!
Lawrence



Hey Lawrence, respect!!
It takes a lot of gut to come and face your critics and posting your before picture ... lol ;-)
All jokes aside you have a great podcast and you are a great interviewer. You had some good guests recently and some forgetable ones like Pete Sisco. I wish your podcast will stay away a bit from the IMHO highly dogmatic and ineffective abbreviated BBS/HIT systems and more geared towards other topics. You ask very intelligent questions and have a great voice for the medium.
On the issue of genetics we will have to disagree, I just think that you are not training with enough volume and not eating enough calories. Also training for 15 minutes is clearly not helping you but you may know yourself better and as you very well put it we are all entitled to our own opinions.
All the best

Kind regards

Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Mr. Neil,

One major complaint, otherwise I like your podcasts.

Your tone of voice toward Pete Sisco in part 1 seemed supercilious. He seems very intelligent to me, and deserves respect. Hopefully my perception of your tone of voice toward Pete Sisco is wrong!
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

===Scott==
Lawrence, I wouldn't put much thought to what 90% of the posters on here think as most have never had enough nerve as you have to post a picture of them selves, except for the likes of Grant who is an open book on everything with the constant barrage of training photos and videos of himself in action.
Open User Options Menu

LawrenceCW87

acas1959 wrote:
LawrenceCW87 wrote:
Hi guys,

Thanks for the free traffic :D

I thought I would respond to some of your comments here.

Sirloin - Great user name :D. Thanks for the podcast kudos. Fair point re improving vs optimising muscle gain. What I believe based on my podcast, personal exp, and the literature is that a BBS 15min workout will get most people what they can get in terms of muscle gain. I've tried HVT in the past and I'm currently doing HIT 2 or 3 times per week for an N=1 but I think that, at the end of the day, genetics determine response. I think perhaps 2 sessions a week may be better for some but I still think we're slicing the ham very thin. However, I am talking to Dr Brad Schoenfeld again soon and I'm ALWAYS open to new evidence that may support the contrary. All I care about is what works and the truth.

Dan_the_man - I've attached another pic of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm very happy with my physique. Again, loads, freq, diet, etc ain't going to make much of a difference. These are my genetics.

Lioncourt - Clearly you haven't listened to my podcast very much. I've interviewed several guests who somewhat oppose HIT (Dr Brad Schoenfeld, Dr Andy Galpin). And Brad joins me for a Part 2 soon. I admit that at the start, I was quite dogmatic about BBS HIT. But hey - we all live and learn :D. My podcast episodes are crystallised thoughts in time. Not much I can do about that. And I always encourage listeners to take what I and my guests say with a pinch of salt and N=1. But back to your point, I've actually been challenging BBS a lot recently with my interviews with Dr Ted Naiman. We're talking about daily HIT workouts! :D So it's not quite the perfect example, as you put it, I'm afraid.

StuKE - interesting comment and observation. Personally I don't think the mode makes a damn bit of difference. Training with enough effort / to failure seems to invoke all it can regardless if it's BW, free weight, machines etc. I just don't think natural hypertrophy optimisation is anywhere as near as complicated as we make it. BUT if anyone has evidence to show otherwise, please share! However if we're talking about adding another 5%, not sure if I'm that interested ;-)

Thanks for your attention!
Lawrence



Hey Lawrence, respect!!
It takes a lot of gut to come and face your critics and posting your before picture ... lol ;-)
All jokes aside you have a great podcast and you are a great interviewer. You had some good guests recently and some forgetable ones like Pete Sisco. I wish your podcast will stay away a bit from the IMHO highly dogmatic and ineffective abbreviated BBS/HIT systems and more geared towards other topics. You ask very intelligent questions and have a great voice for the medium.
On the issue of genetics we will have to disagree, I just think that you are not training with enough volume and not eating enough calories. Also training for 15 minutes is clearly not helping you but you may know yourself better and as you very well put it we are all entitled to our own opinions.
All the best

Kind regards



Thank you sir. I try to invite all opinions on my show so long as they can communicate their opinion intelligently and clearly.
I've tried eating many calories in the past and just got fat lol. It might be true that if I ate a bit more I might add a bit of muscle, not sure if more volume would help. May do another N=1 to test. the pic you see above is based on 2 x 15-20min workouts per week of bodyweight HIT.

Back to diet, my only concern with eating more is that ultimately you have to sustain the cals to retain the muscle - indefinitely. That seems a bit silly to me, when there are more important things in life than ensuring one gets a min number of cals per day for the rest of their training life just to retain a bit more muscle. But each to their own.

Cheers,
Lawrence
Open User Options Menu

LawrenceCW87

sirloin wrote:
LawrenceCW87 wrote:
Hi guys,

Thanks for the free traffic :D

I thought I would respond to some of your comments here.

Sirloin - Great user name :D. Thanks for the podcast kudos. Fair point re improving vs optimising muscle gain. What I believe based on my podcast, personal exp, and the literature is that a BBS 15min workout will get most people what they can get in terms of muscle gain. I've tried HVT in the past and I'm currently doing HIT 2 or 3 times per week for an N=1 but I think that, at the end of the day, genetics determine response. I think perhaps 2 sessions a week may be better for some but I still think we're slicing the ham very thin. However, I am talking to Dr Brad Schoenfeld again soon and I'm ALWAYS open to new evidence that may support the contrary. All I care about is what works and the truth.

Dan_the_man - I've attached another pic of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm very happy with my physique. Again, loads, freq, diet, etc ain't going to make much of a difference. These are my genetics.

Lioncourt - Clearly you haven't listened to my podcast very much. I've interviewed several guests who somewhat oppose HIT (Dr Brad Schoenfeld, Dr Andy Galpin). And Brad joins me for a Part 2 soon. I admit that at the start, I was quite dogmatic about BBS HIT. But hey - we all live and learn :D. My podcast episodes are crystallised thoughts in time. Not much I can do about that. And I always encourage listeners to take what I and my guests say with a pinch of salt and N=1. But back to your point, I've actually been challenging BBS a lot recently with my interviews with Dr Ted Naiman. We're talking about daily HIT workouts! :D So it's not quite the perfect example, as you put it, I'm afraid.

StuKE - interesting comment and observation. Personally I don't think the mode makes a damn bit of difference. Training with enough effort / to failure seems to invoke all it can regardless if it's BW, free weight, machines etc. I just don't think natural hypertrophy optimisation is anywhere as near as complicated as we make it. BUT if anyone has evidence to show otherwise, please share! However if we're talking about adding another 5%, not sure if I'm that interested ;-)

Thanks for your attention!
Lawrence



Hey Lawrence, hows it going:)

Yeah fair points, i trained using that appoarch for 20 years, it does work, but for me upping my frequency (5-6 brief workout per week / Art De Vany style) took me to new heights, its much like Andrew Shortt said on your show, i.e., with regards to ekking out those last 10-15% of possible gains.

This being said, ive just recently dropped my frequency back to just once or twice per week due to other commitments, but have upped my volume somewhat in these workouts. So it'll be interesting to see if theres any muscle loss. I keep a log here so ill provide some evidence either way.

The kudo's is well desevered, am looking forward to the up and coming Doug Hollands interview:)

Btw, if your ever in the North and looking for a good spot to train, i train at North Down barbell club near Belfast, owned by Belfasts strongest man Phil Morgan. Great gym, has low friction equipment, strongman equipment etc.

All the best
Rob



Interesting approach to training Rob. Appreciate you listen to my show :D

Not been to Belfast. May look you up if I'm in town!

Cheers,
Lawrence
Open User Options Menu

StuKE

LawrenceCW87 wrote:
acas1959 wrote:
LawrenceCW87 wrote:
Hi guys,

Thanks for the free traffic :D

I thought I would respond to some of your comments here.

Sirloin - Great user name :D. Thanks for the podcast kudos. Fair point re improving vs optimising muscle gain. What I believe based on my podcast, personal exp, and the literature is that a BBS 15min workout will get most people what they can get in terms of muscle gain. I've tried HVT in the past and I'm currently doing HIT 2 or 3 times per week for an N=1 but I think that, at the end of the day, genetics determine response. I think perhaps 2 sessions a week may be better for some but I still think we're slicing the ham very thin. However, I am talking to Dr Brad Schoenfeld again soon and I'm ALWAYS open to new evidence that may support the contrary. All I care about is what works and the truth.

Dan_the_man - I've attached another pic of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm very happy with my physique. Again, loads, freq, diet, etc ain't going to make much of a difference. These are my genetics.

Lioncourt - Clearly you haven't listened to my podcast very much. I've interviewed several guests who somewhat oppose HIT (Dr Brad Schoenfeld, Dr Andy Galpin). And Brad joins me for a Part 2 soon. I admit that at the start, I was quite dogmatic about BBS HIT. But hey - we all live and learn :D. My podcast episodes are crystallised thoughts in time. Not much I can do about that. And I always encourage listeners to take what I and my guests say with a pinch of salt and N=1. But back to your point, I've actually been challenging BBS a lot recently with my interviews with Dr Ted Naiman. We're talking about daily HIT workouts! :D So it's not quite the perfect example, as you put it, I'm afraid.

StuKE - interesting comment and observation. Personally I don't think the mode makes a damn bit of difference. Training with enough effort / to failure seems to invoke all it can regardless if it's BW, free weight, machines etc. I just don't think natural hypertrophy optimisation is anywhere as near as complicated as we make it. BUT if anyone has evidence to show otherwise, please share! However if we're talking about adding another 5%, not sure if I'm that interested ;-)

Thanks for your attention!
Lawrence



Hey Lawrence, respect!!
It takes a lot of gut to come and face your critics and posting your before picture ... lol ;-)
All jokes aside you have a great podcast and you are a great interviewer. You had some good guests recently and some forgetable ones like Pete Sisco. I wish your podcast will stay away a bit from the IMHO highly dogmatic and ineffective abbreviated BBS/HIT systems and more geared towards other topics. You ask very intelligent questions and have a great voice for the medium.
On the issue of genetics we will have to disagree, I just think that you are not training with enough volume and not eating enough calories. Also training for 15 minutes is clearly not helping you but you may know yourself better and as you very well put it we are all entitled to our own opinions.
All the best

Kind regards



Thank you sir. I try to invite all opinions on my show so long as they can communicate their opinion intelligently and clearly.
I've tried eating many calories in the past and just got fat lol. It might be true that if I ate a bit more I might add a bit of muscle, not sure if more volume would help. May do another N=1 to test. the pic you see above is based on 2 x 15-20min workouts per week of bodyweight HIT.

Back to diet, my only concern with eating more is that ultimately you have to sustain the cals to retain the muscle - indefinitely. That seems a bit silly to me, when there are more important things in life than ensuring one gets a min number of cals per day for the rest of their training life just to retain a bit more muscle. But each to their own.

Cheers,
Lawrence


Hi Lawrence
Nice to see you taking the time to discuss on here, and you are very well spoken.
I agree with your last paragraph - don't get me wrong, I can see the draw of more muscle and often find myself chasing it, but more and more lately I feel happy enough just training hard and trying to be in good shape, strong etc. Never could sustain the higher calories, not for long and once I lowered them, my weight would lower too. I used to get a lot of bloatedness, visits to the toilet and discomfort too, though I do have IBS to be fair.
Still, respect to the guys who do chase the muscle more too, nothing wrong with that either.
All the best.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Hey very cool to see your accomplishments and read your posts. I've listened to a LOT of your podcasts, I look forward to any new ones you post, I myself think you ask great questions and do a great job of interviewing your guests.

Your photo: I must say I'm surprised, from how you talk on your podcasts, I actually thought you had made very little progress, but you have done quite well. Some on here are obviously not in touch with reality for hardgainers, you do have a good amount of muscle and are very lean. Most people have the same muscle with fat on it and think they are more muscular. NOT! Strip down to clear ab revealing body fat and see how your muscle size is RELATIVE to their bone structure. People with bones the size of baseball bats are naturally just larger. I know this scenario, I have wrists barely over 6 inches. I'm built like a sparrow, so no way could I ever have 17 inch arms.

I think you've done great, that's how a natural smaller boned trainee should look!




LawrenceCW87 wrote:
Hi guys,

Thanks for the free traffic :D

I thought I would respond to some of your comments here.

Sirloin - Great user name :D. Thanks for the podcast kudos. Fair point re improving vs optimising muscle gain. What I believe based on my podcast, personal exp, and the literature is that a BBS 15min workout will get most people what they can get in terms of muscle gain. I've tried HVT in the past and I'm currently doing HIT 2 or 3 times per week for an N=1 but I think that, at the end of the day, genetics determine response. I think perhaps 2 sessions a week may be better for some but I still think we're slicing the ham very thin. However, I am talking to Dr Brad Schoenfeld again soon and I'm ALWAYS open to new evidence that may support the contrary. All I care about is what works and the truth.

Dan_the_man - I've attached another pic of me. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm very happy with my physique. Again, loads, freq, diet, etc ain't going to make much of a difference. These are my genetics.

Lioncourt - Clearly you haven't listened to my podcast very much. I've interviewed several guests who somewhat oppose HIT (Dr Brad Schoenfeld, Dr Andy Galpin). And Brad joins me for a Part 2 soon. I admit that at the start, I was quite dogmatic about BBS HIT. But hey - we all live and learn :D. My podcast episodes are crystallised thoughts in time. Not much I can do about that. And I always encourage listeners to take what I and my guests say with a pinch of salt and N=1. But back to your point, I've actually been challenging BBS a lot recently with my interviews with Dr Ted Naiman. We're talking about daily HIT workouts! :D So it's not quite the perfect example, as you put it, I'm afraid.

StuKE - interesting comment and observation. Personally I don't think the mode makes a damn bit of difference. Training with enough effort / to failure seems to invoke all it can regardless if it's BW, free weight, machines etc. I just don't think natural hypertrophy optimisation is anywhere as near as complicated as we make it. BUT if anyone has evidence to show otherwise, please share! However if we're talking about adding another 5%, not sure if I'm that interested ;-)

Thanks for your attention!
Lawrence



Open User Options Menu

LawrenceCW87

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Mr. Neil,

One major complaint, otherwise I like your podcasts.

Your tone of voice toward Pete Sisco in part 1 seemed supercilious. He seems very intelligent to me, and deserves respect. Hopefully my perception of your tone of voice toward Pete Sisco is wrong!


During Part 1 I was skeptical of Pete's approach to exercise and specifically optimising for muscle hypertrophy. And I still remain skeptical. However, as I concluded at the end of Part 1, I found Pete's perspective and model very interesting and even though I don't completely agree, I still learnt something from him. That doesn't make me right or Pete wrong. And note, Pete has used his approach to help thousands of his clients get great results and has the case studies to boot.

I am always trying to improve my interviewing style. I would rather come across neutral and without judgement. I've been guilty of going into some shows with an agenda and it makes for a worse interview and causes undue friction between me and the guest. I don't think that happened with Pete and I but he's a mature gent and probably wouldn't let me get to him haha. Ah well, I live and learn. Hopefully my future shows will be far less biased and constructive. After all, I am the learning conduit for the listeners :D
Open User Options Menu

LawrenceCW87

Nwlifter wrote:
Hey very cool to see your accomplishments and read your posts. I've listened to a LOT of your podcasts, I look forward to any new ones you post, I myself think you ask great questions and do a great job of interviewing your guests.

Your photo: I must say I'm surprised, from how you talk on your podcasts, I actually thought you had made very little progress, but you have done quite well. Some on here are obviously not in touch with reality for hardgainers, you do have a good amount of muscle and are very lean. Most people have the same muscle with fat on it and think they are more muscular. NOT! Strip down to clear ab revealing body fat and see how your muscle size is RELATIVE to their bone structure. People with bones the size of baseball bats are naturally just larger. I know this scenario, I have wrists barely over 6 inches. I'm built like a sparrow, so no way could I ever have 17 inch arms.

I think you've done great, that's how a natural smaller boned trainee should look!






Thank you. I really appreciate your support and I'm glad you enjoy the podcast.

Thanks for the compliments on the physique :D.

Optimising muscle mass is a funny thing. Everyone is trying to find "the secret". Being a hardgainer myself I know how that feels.

From my POV, based on the research, my experience, genetic limits, etc, it seems quite clear that RT protocol doesn't really matter that much and too many calories just make you fat. So long as you're training near or to failure 1-3 times a week and eating 1-1.5g per kg, I think you're going to get what you can.

Perhaps some minor tweaks will reap an additional 5% but that's all. that's my opinion, open to yours/others

I think most of us natural hardgainers are better off accepting our limits. And realise that if we do gain more, it's a war of grams as Dr Ted Naiman put it on my show

That's not to say I won't be discussing how to optimise hypertrophy on my show, but I'm much happier in myself having accepted my limits. You must also remember that the grey scale pic is from a post workout pump too with good lighting.

Best,
Lawrence
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

LawrenceCW87 wrote:
Thank you. I really appreciate your support and I'm glad you enjoy the podcast.

Thanks for the compliments on the physique :D.


Your welcome, I do really enjoy them, you ask good questions and are extremely polite, makes listening very enjoyable.

Optimising muscle mass is a funny thing. Everyone is trying to find "the secret". Being a hardgainer myself I know how that feels.

From my POV, based on the research, my experience, genetic limits, etc, it seems quite clear that RT protocol doesn't really matter that much and too many calories just make you fat. So long as you're training near or to failure 1-3 times a week and eating 1-1.5g per kg, I think you're going to get what you can.


Spot on correct IMO too. We had a thread on here before showing photos of some of the champs when they were teens, you can see the potential hugely in them. 1-2 years of training and they have 10x the muscle most of us ever get after a lifetime of training.

I spent years studying muscle physiology, pouring over countless studies, etc. We worry so much if were 'stimulating' hypertrophy, but the real deal is, it's all what our body does after we stimulate. Stimulation is easy, it's perpetually adapting long term that is the key part and that's mostly about our genetics (hormones, etc. etc.)

Perhaps some minor tweaks will reap an additional 5% but that's all. that's my opinion, open to yours/others

I think most of us natural hardgainers are better off accepting our limits. And realise that if we do gain more, it's a war of grams as Dr Ted Naiman put it on my show


Good points, agreed.

That's not to say I won't be discussing how to optimise hypertrophy on my show, but I'm much happier in myself having accepted my limits. You must also remember that the grey scale pic is from a post workout pump too with good lighting.

Best,
Lawrence


I'm the same way, I still LOVE training talk, theories, etc. It, and diet, are the only two real factors natural trainees can manipulate.

Even so, you have done well, super lean, muscle, and great symmetry. IMO that looks better than a bloated unsymmetrical drug physique.

thanks for taking the time to reply, very cool to 'talk' to you after listening to your podcasts. Keep up the great work!

Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy