Sort of a 70’s Big Females post
People who train, workout, or are active have a different perception of what is attractive and what isn’t. Those who don’t do anything at all — like fat people — think that anything without fat is good, and extremely skinny is exemplary.

For example, Zuzana from Body Rock is a pretty girl who has no body fat whatsoever and fake tits. Fat and average women and men think she is the greatest thing to walk the Earth. Anybody that has trained, has a decent set of musculature (non-bulky for women, of course), and is kinda strong sees Zuzana for what she is; a skinny chick with fake hooters. Is she pretty? Sure. Would all my male readers want to bang her regardless? Yes, but they would literally bang 98% of the world’s female population if no one else would ever learn about it (implying that there is only 2% of the world’s population that they would actually deny, mostly involving your grandmother and niece).

Besides, when one of the readers barges in the comments saying how they perceive Zuzana to be optimal, they are not very big or strong anyway. And if they are, they are the minority of those that are kinda big or strong.

Just because a skinny body image is preferred by most people — those who don’t train — doesn’t make it preferable. That’s like saying if there is 10,000 people in a cult who like to murder puppies then it’s okay to murder puppies (it is not) so long as you believe the same thing as this cult. Groupthink is so pathetic it’s funny (unless puppies are at harm).

In reality, it isn’t difficult for a chick to “have a nice body” (Note: For those of you women who train to be strong and able, I apologize that you have to suffer through this. If you fucking sent me messages/pictures/videos then I would have some material to work with). By merely eating a non-vegetarian diet with quality meats and doing calisthenic based exercise, most chicks can “lean up” and garner a little muscle to be “toned” since calisthenics are more than just going to work and watching E!. Don’t believe me? The WildGorillaMan supplies pictures of women who do this very thing every day.

If a girl doesn’t want to lift weights, then she doesn’t have to. She should only do a program that she’s going to be enthusiastic about, but that doesn’t mean she should avoid learning what program is actually going to help her. A lady doesn’t have to do a straight linear progression — she can do calisthenics or conditioning after lifting EVERY DAY. The lifting won’t take long in the beginning anyway, it won’t interfere with recovery, and she’ll feel more accomplished. The hard part is getting her to realize that being skinny isn’t attractive.

Emily Howard is an active LADY

Spencer Hall of edsbs.com found me THIS excellent link with pictures of Ricky Bruch that you have never seen. There are 35 total, and I’ve picked some of the good ones for below. Ricky Bruch is honored by the gods. I hereby name him to the 70’s Big Hall of Fame posthumously.
Happy PR Friday
Post weekly PRs and training updates to comments

Shirtless science

Time travel

No explanation needed

[spoiler show=”I want to see!” hide=”Take it away!”]

A Swedish ol' time

[/spoiler]

Stock

Victory

He was actually elite

Which way is the cowboy/carnival beach?

Special move

Regular style

Didn't need a spot

As you can see, Ricky was a joyous, burly man. He clearly trained his ass off yet had fun while doing it. I wish I could have known this man.
Note: If you can translate Swedish, then contact me.

Some of you may remember how Sal Giunta was awarded the Medal of Honor — the highest military decoration available — for his actions during a deployment to the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan. A month from now Sgt. 1st Class Leroy Arthur Petry will receive the same decoration.

Petry was assigned to Company A, 2nd Bn., 75th Ranger Regiment while in Afghanistan. During a rare day-time raid, Petry and another Ranger were clearing a courtyard in a mission to capture a high value target. They were both wounded (Petry was shot through both legs), took cover in a chicken coop, and were joined by a third Ranger. After surviving a grenade blast from ten feet away, another grenade was thrown into the chicken coop several feet from the soldiers.

Recognizing the threat that the enemy grenade posed to his fellow Rangers, Petry — despite his own wounds and with complete disregard for his personal safety — consciously and deliberately risked his life to move to and secure the live enemy grenade and consciously throw the grenade away from his fellow Rangers, according to battlefield reports.

As Petry released the grenade in the direction of the enemy, preventing the serious injury or death of Higgins and Robinson, it detonated and catastrophically amputated his right hand.

With a clear mind, Petry assessed his wound and placed a tourniquet on his right arm. Once this was complete, he reported that he was still in contact with the enemy and that he had been wounded again.

I think that this deserves repeating. Petry saw a live grenade a few feet from his soldiers, moved towards it, picked the fucking thing up, and chucked it away as it blew his hand off. Then what did he do? He fucking put a tourniquet on his own arm, and then fucking reported what happened.
“You, this is me, I was wounded again, don’t have a hand, situation normal, over.”
Yes, this is real life.

I can’t talk about lifting or even think about people bitching at each other online about training when a story like this needs to be told. Everything else is just so fucking irrelevant.

LINK

Hopefully the quick few words on programming the other day helped steer some of you in a better direction, whether you needed to get focused or expand your horizons. Today I want to talk about a set and rep scheme that has been around for a while, but may be interesting to some of the readers looking to tweak their programming.

There’s no way to tell who invented what and when, but Steve Shafley posted a nice summary on using ladders to increase strength in 2005 on Power and Bulk. The premise is using some kind of ladder to garner some volume (relatively speaking). The standard ladder example consists of sets of 1/2/3 (one rep, then a double, then a triple), and typically at least three ladders are done in a workout with a given exercise. In this kind of set up, all the reps of all the ladders shouldn’t be difficult. If you look at Shaf’s explanation, he used it three days a week for close grip bench and had some nice progress (although I want to point out that I don’t know his training history or preceding program to using the ladder method — remember, programming is relative to the individual). Shaf also points out that this method will relatively have higher volume and lower intensity.

Ricky Bruch pulls ladders out of his beard

Recently Dr. Hartman did a post on playing around with ladders, citing the P&B post. Whereas Shaf found that the volume was what helped drive progress, Dr. Hartman used this the lower rep scheme to accumulate some volume with heavier loads.

I have capped my number of ladders at 3, so a typical ladder on Wednesday would be 1/2/3/1/2/3/1/2/3; 9 sets and 18 total reps. With the increased number of sets, and lower max reps per set, you are able to train at a heavier load than you could with a similar volume but different configuration (6×3, 4×4, etc.)

If you check out Hartman’s post, he had a nice little progression by using this method (he front squatted MF and back squatted on W). Both of these examples implement the set/rep scheme very differently, yet both garnered an improvement in strength. The similarities is that both of Shaf and Hartman used it to get some accumulated volume — each 1/2/3 ladder is six reps, and three to five ladders is 18 to 30 reps. Shaf used the method on one exercise, similar to a Russian-style of greasing the groove. Hartman used it on his back squats to break through a training plateau with heavier loads. Shaf’s goal was low fatigue on each set whereas Hartman wanted to push his ladders to reach into his 150kg 3RM realm:

My progression was as follows: 120kg – 3 ladders, 130 – 3, 135 – 3, 140 – 2, 140 – 3, 145 – 2, 145 – 3, and this week 150kg – 3 ladders.

Whenever I read something new or are reminded of an old principle, I like to think how I can implement it into the style of programming I use. Most linear progressions are so basic that they don’t need to worry about ladders, yet ladders would be good to bring up a lacking strength and mass with Shaf’s accumulated workload style in someone that is beyond the LP necessity. Hartman’s higher intensity method would be more of a short term plateau buster — probably not something that would be used in the long run. However, the principle could be implemented in any program.

The S&C Program that I outlined could shift from a) a basic three sets of five rep scheme to b) a Greyskull three sets of five with the last set going for as many reps as possible, and then c) a ladder set-up that allows for more weight to be handled (higher intensity) with medium levels of volume (three 1/2/3 ladders = 18 reps). The ‘high intensity’ ladder twist could potentially be used on a Volume Day for a Texas Method style program, but I wouldn’t use it on anyone unless they progress through the lower volume schemes I detailed in the e-book (and I still would only use it in limited situations). Any basic template could use a ladder set up if pertinent, and they could be cycled with other things like ascending/descending/sets across of doubles/triples/fives/tens, or rep target power building stuff. Basically it’s another shade of ink that a programming artist can use to paint a strong, powerful, well built man.
Note: Don’t Google search “well built man”

This is what comes up when you Google image search 'burly'