Question on "Greg Plitt"

[notetaker888]

Hi,

I've recently been privvied to the likes of Greg Plitt and his training methods, and I'm curious as to what other people think about this cover model/trainer, and others like him in the industry.

http://www.gregplitt.com/

Various sources indicate that, this cover model/trainer promotes a high intesity training workout, which for the life of me, I can't understand how someone can grow on it. Some of his workouts seems to loosely translate to a "Crossfit/Bootcamp" style, which incorporate things like pullups, tire flipping, sledge hammer, sled, and then all of the associated exercises in the gym room (more isolated than purely compound movements).

Perhaps, these type of programs are good for people, once a certain size (read: mass) has been achieved, if you need to trim down, but it sounds like he preaches to trim down from the start, and grow your muscle from that "trimmed' base.

Do they give false hope to the novice/intermediate trainees trying to train "with their methods", in achieving their goals i.e by trying to make their physique the same as the cover model/trainer's.

My thoughts on this question, is that some people are purely genetic "freaks of nature", which others can't replicate, unless certain substances are consumed and spending 10x years in the gym - being strict in every mannor.

What are your thoughts?

Regards,

notetaker

[PaulBeech]

False hope. Marketing. Give people what they want not what they need. Fitness world is dominated by it.

[veryhrm]

Does he promise any particular strength or size? Since it's Olympic season it should be mentioned that a fair amount of athletes look good w/o lifting heavy. Boxers, water polo players, gymnasts... There's some moderately strong and cut CrossFit guys running around that look good too. As was recently mentioned in other threads "cut" looks more impressive than big to most people... and lifting for strength doesn't even make you that big (at the amateur levels).

Also endurance or strength endurance things sound more impressive than strength feats. To someone who doesn't lift the difference between 300lb and 500lb squat doesn't mean anything. 100 push-ups and lots of sweating and effort resonates with a lot more people (though still probably not with those who have never exercised at all).

So i don't think these bootcamp type people are evil or anything.

[Tom Narvaez]

Test, Tren A, GH

Enjoy.

[notetaker888]

I still can't believe those physiques within the Olympics. The females are so trim, without an ounce of fat on their bodies. They all similarly have visible abs, and super toned. The men are built too e.g. even the runners which surprises me, which appears that they must do a hell of a lot of weights on top of their specific training - although I tend to watch more of the female events - heh.

I'm guessing this is the result of many years training strictly with coaches every day, and/or every second day - which to us with families and/or other commitements might be abit harder I suppose - especially without the enticement of sponsorships and endorsements.

So hypothetically, are these kinds of feats still achievable by a novice/intermediate trainee, or do we fall within being 'a mere mortal' pact?

Are your thoughts on getting size, and then trimming down still true or have your thoughts changed in recent times? I wonder how SS influenced programs, would fit into these type of schedules.

I still think some athletes were bigger, before they cut down for an event, but that's just my uneducated thought I suppose.

I had an inkling to buy a power rack, bar, plates, and bench, to do my exercises, but I guess I'll need a hell of a lot more, if I reach my limit with SS, and want to start trimming down. I thought I could get away with it, as an all time solution but I guess that can't logically happen.

Notetaker

[Dastardly]

I still can't believe those physiques within the Olympics. The females are so trim, without an ounce of fat on their bodies. They all similarly have visible abs, and super toned. The men are built too e.g. even the runners which surprises me, which appears that they must do a hell of a lot of weights on top of their specific training

This is a misconception. Most of them would be as muscular or ahem.... ripped anyway. Aesthetics is mostly genetics. The athletes in track events in mostly do not use a great deal of weight training, and their physiques certainly do not depend on it. Shorter sprinters need a lot of muscle to move as quick as their long limbed rivals, look at Ben Johnson for an old example, Johann Blake for a newer one. But understand they would be very nearly as muscular without having ever touched a weight. Look at the upper bodies of the female sprinters, they all have thick abs, cannon ball delts, big arms muscles etc. But do you think they do bench press and curls? Their sedentary family members probably look very similar to them. THe sport activity is enough to shape and maintain the muscle, the actual sprinting. The taller guys (like bolt) certainly do not do any significant weight training regimes.

If you compare the physiques of weightlifters in the same category who lift similar weights, you will see wild variations in body shapes, lean-ness and muscularity. What they look like has absolutely no effect on the performances. The american Kendrick Farris probably has the most impressive physique in the entire olympics, but he came very low down in his sport. All the weightlifters train almost exactly the same. There are lifters who are top 3 in the world and they do not even look like they lift weights, people who can stick 200kg overhead.

What these people look like is mostly their genetics, but a small part PED's. The diet will allow them to gain or lose weight on whatever their natural comfortable bodyweight is.

Adaption (in this context growing mass) is something heavily governed by diminishing gains. With the top level your genetic potential, most of the athletes in 'power events' have reached their genetic potential in muscularity (look at weightlifters, heavier rowers, shorter sprinters, shot put, hammer throw, discus, upper body of gymnasts) going beyond this is not really possible without steroids. They could nudge over if they ate an uncomfortable of food and specialised in bodybuilding, but it would not make a huge difference.

[veryhrm]

i don't understand your core concerns here...

All the weight class athletes (fighters, weightlifters, maybe rowing) were likely bigger and they cut down. Other athletes don't do that, but when you run around a lot carrying 20lbs of extra fat isn't helpful. As to swimmers... there are thousands of swimmers in US high schools and colleges who look roughly like the olympic swimmers. Usually shorter and a bit smaller, but same look.

That said there is also the selection factor at the Olympics. All the athletes in a given sport look the same partly because they happen to have a body-type suitable for that sport. There are no 5' tall beach volleyball players and there are no 6'3" female gymnasts because it is not possible for people like that to be competitive.

Similarly you don't see burly people in the 10k (which i just happened to see on TV this morning. A surprisingly tall, but spindly, american got silver. ) and you don't see slight people in the 100m. Only part of that is adaptation to training. The other part is that at these elite levels you have to have a body compatible with the sport.

When it comes to appearance an easy example to consider is body builder's abs. Some people have eight packs with nice separation (likethe model guy you write about) and other people whose abs are as strong and and developed and at similarly low body fat just don't have that separation. Nothing they can do about it. Like having blue eyes or brown eyes not all people's muscles grow in the same shape. (or, more perecisely, they're not attached in the same place and don't have the same muscle to tedon length ratios)

[mrflibble]

This is a misconception. Most of them would be as muscular or ahem.... ripped anyway. Aesthetics is mostly genetics. The athletes in track events in mostly do not use a great deal of weight training, and their physiques certainly do not depend on it. Shorter sprinters need a lot of muscle to move as quick as their long limbed rivals, look at Ben Johnson for an old example, Johann Blake for a newer one. But understand they would be very nearly as muscular without having ever touched a weight. Look at the upper bodies of the female sprinters, they all have thick abs, cannon ball delts, big arms muscles etc. But do you think they do bench press and curls? Their sedentary family members probably look very similar to them. THe sport activity is enough to shape and maintain the muscle, the actual sprinting. The taller guys (like bolt) certainly do not do any significant weight training regimes.

If you compare the physiques of weightlifters in the same category who lift similar weights, you will see wild variations in body shapes, lean-ness and muscularity. What they look like has absolutely no effect on the performances. The american Kendrick Farris probably has the most impressive physique in the entire olympics, but he came very low down in his sport. All the weightlifters train almost exactly the same. There are lifters who are top 3 in the world and they do not even look like they lift weights, people who can stick 200kg overhead.

What these people look like is mostly their genetics, but a small part PED's. The diet will allow them to gain or lose weight on whatever their natural comfortable bodyweight is.

Adaption (in this context growing mass) is something heavily governed by diminishing gains. With the top level your genetic potential, most of the athletes in 'power events' have reached their genetic potential in muscularity (look at weightlifters, heavier rowers, shorter sprinters, shot put, hammer throw, discus, upper body of gymnasts) going beyond this is not really possible without steroids. They could nudge over if they ate an uncomfortable of food and specialised in bodybuilding, but it would not make a huge difference.

And with this, you've reached a new standard of stupidity.

[notetaker888]

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on my convoluted question.

I do realise that all of these athletes are an elite class of their own, and/or pure freaks of nature. Decathletes are totally amazing in my book, purely with their adaption to different events within their sport.

I suppose I'll have to settle in being a "mere mortal", as this old timer has missed the boat.