Click the link to go to the MAX - OT link page or simply navigate via the top page headers:
Natural Aesthetics - Drug free bodybuilding: MAX - OT - Natural Aesthetics Excel Template:
Showing posts with label strength. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strength. Show all posts
Sunday, 4 October 2015
Monday, 13 July 2015
Building a better body.
There is a massive difference between having a good body and being muscular. Muscularity at the cost of aesthetics is pointless. Guys on the ifbb stage continue to get bigger and bigger, yet look less aesthetic with every 5lb gained. An extra inch on the arms at the price of an extra inch on the waist is simply not worth it in my eyes - and does little to improve the look of the physique as a whole.
Proportion is also something that is often neglegted. Common mistakes are forgoing triceps training for biceps. Shoulders being too large for arms and shoulders being too wide for chest/back thickness, as well as the legs being too wiry for the upper body. Of course this is a matter of opinion and also something that often seems to be exaggerated by steroid usage; where muscle growth is extremely fast in certain areas (shoulders,traps etc) which leads to disproportion is the trainee is not careful.
Posture is also often overlooked. Its extremely important for creating a visually impactful physique, something that is clearly seen and recognised by non-lifters. Posture can create vastly different quality aesthetics in equally muscled physiques. Two guys could have the same muscle mass; one with great posture, one with hunched shoulders, tight traps and a caved chest, the former will always look better. This also relates to proportion, as spending too much time training a certain area can cause postural imbalances. There are certain exercises that one can perform on a regular basis to help posture. Simply training the body with compound movements will drastically reduce the risk of postural problems. This teaches the body to move as a unit and can help to create a flowing, well - rounded physique.
Overhead press with full lockout is a must. The bar should travel upwards, arms fully straightened, to finish level with the back area of the head. This will sort a lot of upper body posture problems.
Wall pushes can help with developing the technique and mobility to perform the overhead press properly. Simply stand back facing a wall, heels, bum, shoulders and head touching and slide hands upwards against the wall to the overhead positions; keeping elbows and knuckles against the wall.
Simply practising keeping the back arched rather than rounded will improve posture. Learning to draw the shoulders back, keeping chest high and out - will create a more confident and attractive physique. Deadlifts, bent rows and low row will help with accentuating this.
We shouldn't just strive for muscularity in the gym. Muscularity doesn't equate to a nice physique, as seen by some of the monstrosities in your local gym. Rather, focus on attaining an aesthetic physique by keeping in mind the pointers I've just discussed.
Natural Aesthetics
Proportion is also something that is often neglegted. Common mistakes are forgoing triceps training for biceps. Shoulders being too large for arms and shoulders being too wide for chest/back thickness, as well as the legs being too wiry for the upper body. Of course this is a matter of opinion and also something that often seems to be exaggerated by steroid usage; where muscle growth is extremely fast in certain areas (shoulders,traps etc) which leads to disproportion is the trainee is not careful.
Posture is also often overlooked. Its extremely important for creating a visually impactful physique, something that is clearly seen and recognised by non-lifters. Posture can create vastly different quality aesthetics in equally muscled physiques. Two guys could have the same muscle mass; one with great posture, one with hunched shoulders, tight traps and a caved chest, the former will always look better. This also relates to proportion, as spending too much time training a certain area can cause postural imbalances. There are certain exercises that one can perform on a regular basis to help posture. Simply training the body with compound movements will drastically reduce the risk of postural problems. This teaches the body to move as a unit and can help to create a flowing, well - rounded physique.
Overhead press with full lockout is a must. The bar should travel upwards, arms fully straightened, to finish level with the back area of the head. This will sort a lot of upper body posture problems.
Wall pushes can help with developing the technique and mobility to perform the overhead press properly. Simply stand back facing a wall, heels, bum, shoulders and head touching and slide hands upwards against the wall to the overhead positions; keeping elbows and knuckles against the wall.
Simply practising keeping the back arched rather than rounded will improve posture. Learning to draw the shoulders back, keeping chest high and out - will create a more confident and attractive physique. Deadlifts, bent rows and low row will help with accentuating this.
We shouldn't just strive for muscularity in the gym. Muscularity doesn't equate to a nice physique, as seen by some of the monstrosities in your local gym. Rather, focus on attaining an aesthetic physique by keeping in mind the pointers I've just discussed.
Natural Aesthetics
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
IS SQUATTING AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY IN BODYBUILDING?
The question refers to whether or not the Barbell Back Squat is an absolute essential exercise for BODYBUILDING. Note the use of the word 'bodybuilding'; training purely for aesthetics. This is not in regards to strength training or powerlifting s the answer would be ENTIRELY the opposite.
For aesthetic purposes only, the squat is not essential. If you were to train your lower body HARD, smart and consistently for years without touching the squat rack you would more than likely have a decent set of legs. Heavy leg press, extensions, curls and lunges are great tools to build thigh mass - do these for long enough and hard enough and results will come. Aesthetically, its not the end of the world if you don't squat.
However, results would be FAR greater if squats were trained (properly/full depth) regularly with other lower body exercises or even as a replacement to all other lower body exercises. That's how good an exercise it is. I know I sound like I'm contradicting myself, but bear in mind the question is wether they are an absolute necessity for leg development. Leg muscles grow without squats, but you would be foolish to leave squats out of your routine knowing that they would produce far greater results in overall leg mass than any other exercise. I had decent legs a few years ago and my squatting was poor, infrequent and the technique inadequate. My legs were muscular from training HARD on exercises like lunges, leg press and extensions. The last 2 1/2 years or so I have focused mainly on progressing the squat for lower body training and subsequently my legs are bigger than ever.
As a natural trainee aiming to develop serious muscle mass - strength and it's progression must be considered. Simply pumping light weights with no regard to progression of reps, sets, weight or intensity variables will not yield the results commonly seen by trainers using steroids. The squat is the key exercise in the development of lower body strength and strength progression is the catalyst for any natural bodybuilders muscular development.
Although we can build lower body muscle without the back squat, progression will be far greater if heavy back squats are included in your routine regularly - especially for NATURAL trainers where strength progression is so key (but not the only way) to increased muscular development.
Although we can build lower body muscle without the back squat, progression will be far greater if heavy back squats are included in your routine regularly - especially for NATURAL trainers where strength progression is so key (but not the only way) to increased muscular development.
Any questions, OR ONLINE TRAINING enquiry's email me at rossi01@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - www.facebook.com/naturalaesthet1cs
Youtube - www.youtube.com/naturalaestheticstv
Natural Aesthetics - Dream and Achieve
Friday, 3 October 2014
SHOULD I TRACK CALORIES OR JUST EAT CLEAN?
"Should I track Kcal or just eat clean?"
First, lets define 'clean' as foods that are generally not subjected to refinement processes prior to consumption and contain no or very little artificial ingredients. This is not black and white; there is no clear line separating 'clean' and 'dirty' foods from one another. Foods might contain clean and dirty components, meals also might be a mixture of the too which makes it difficult to be so clear cut about what's what. I don't particular like labelling foods as clean or dirty; but for the sake of the discussion we will as most have an understanding of what 'clean' eating entails (I hope).
Person a) Average trainee struggling with controlling bodyweight decides to diet. A considerable portion of their diet will perhaps be made up of calorie dense foods; breads, cereals and sandwiches with fatty fillings. These foods are easy to eat and are often branded as 'healthy/lighter' choices. The truth is that many of these foodstuffs are not much different from foods that we generally think of as 'unhealthy' in terms of kcal and or macronutrients (carbs/fat/protein). Companies pay huge sums of money to make their products appear healthy and attractive to consumers conscious of weight and health. The vast majority of shop bought sandwiches contain more fat and salt than a McDonalds Hamburger; yet have been labelled as the 'healthy' go-to for lunch in the UK for years. Add to this sugary cereals and toast or fruit juice for breakfast, coffees and tea throughout the day and a ready meal for dinner with a glass of wine and person a) will more than likely be in a calorie surplus. This means weight gain; how much and how quick will be dependant on many calories over BMR (the kcal you need to maintain body weight) that person is consuming over a longer period of time. BMR will depend on multiple factors, but it is often low in untrained/sedentary people (which makes it easier to overeat and thus gain bodyfat).
So, person a) decides to reduce carbohydrates, cut them out completely after 6pm, cuts out wine and sugar in coffee, replaces the ready meal with salad and chicken, uses skimmed milk instead full fat ETC. ETC. This is a generalisation but most people follow those sort of procedures when decided to diet.
After 4 weeks of this they will have lost some bodyweight, some of that body fat. They will then associate said weight loss with the new foods they are eating; rather than the calorie deficit that these new foods have created. Salads, vegetables, lean meats and low GI (glycaemic index) carbs such as brown rice, quinoa, oats etc. are filling and generally leave you feeling satisfied for longer. 500kcal of chicken, rice and veg is ALOT harder to eat than 500kcal's worth of microwavable lasagne, thus causing the dieter to generally eat LESS when eating 'clean'. These 'clean' foods do not have magic fat loss properties, its the reduction in kcal brought about by switching from processed, calorie dense foods which are easier to eat in large quantities, to these lighter unprocessed foods that causes the weight loss. This is something people tend to misinterpret and thus contribute to the weight loss confusion; person a) will proudly tell their friend that the secret to their fat loss was simply no carbohydrates after 6pm or by eating less red meat and more white fish but fail to realise the REAL reason why this worked; calorie reduction. The friend then desperately tries this but of course this will only work dependant on the friends overall diet and kcal intake in relation to BMR.
I'm not saying that kcal intake is the absolute be all and end all to weight management, because its not. Im not advocating a whatever fits into your kcal and you'll loose weight approach. Health is number 1, I always advocate a 'clean' eating approach; consuming MOST of your kcal from unprocessed, fresh produce. Fresh meats and fish, good quaility dairy and fibre rich carbohydrate sources aswell as nutrient dense fruit and vegetables. Allowing a small percentage of overall kcal to be derived from 'dirty' food, if you wish, will not harm your weight loss goals; as long as you eat within your BMR.
In summary, Kcal will have the most bearing on weight management and that eating 'clean' generally causes weight loss because of the reduction of kcal associated with choosing these foods over denser, calorie rich processed foods. Not because of some magical weightloss property in certain foodstuffs; which so frequently people are lead to believe. Track Kcal; apply science and common sense to your weight management and take out the guesswork. Eat mostly unprocessed foods, rich in micronutrients, but allow yourselves to eat foods that you enjoy as this WILL help in the long run.
For more information on dieting and how to apply it to yourself to help reach your goals, message me at rossi01@hotmail.co.uk, via www.facebook.com/naturalaesthet1cs or www.youtube.com/naturalaestheticstv
Natural Aesthetics - Dream and Achieve
Ross Newham
First, lets define 'clean' as foods that are generally not subjected to refinement processes prior to consumption and contain no or very little artificial ingredients. This is not black and white; there is no clear line separating 'clean' and 'dirty' foods from one another. Foods might contain clean and dirty components, meals also might be a mixture of the too which makes it difficult to be so clear cut about what's what. I don't particular like labelling foods as clean or dirty; but for the sake of the discussion we will as most have an understanding of what 'clean' eating entails (I hope).
Person a) Average trainee struggling with controlling bodyweight decides to diet. A considerable portion of their diet will perhaps be made up of calorie dense foods; breads, cereals and sandwiches with fatty fillings. These foods are easy to eat and are often branded as 'healthy/lighter' choices. The truth is that many of these foodstuffs are not much different from foods that we generally think of as 'unhealthy' in terms of kcal and or macronutrients (carbs/fat/protein). Companies pay huge sums of money to make their products appear healthy and attractive to consumers conscious of weight and health. The vast majority of shop bought sandwiches contain more fat and salt than a McDonalds Hamburger; yet have been labelled as the 'healthy' go-to for lunch in the UK for years. Add to this sugary cereals and toast or fruit juice for breakfast, coffees and tea throughout the day and a ready meal for dinner with a glass of wine and person a) will more than likely be in a calorie surplus. This means weight gain; how much and how quick will be dependant on many calories over BMR (the kcal you need to maintain body weight) that person is consuming over a longer period of time. BMR will depend on multiple factors, but it is often low in untrained/sedentary people (which makes it easier to overeat and thus gain bodyfat).
So, person a) decides to reduce carbohydrates, cut them out completely after 6pm, cuts out wine and sugar in coffee, replaces the ready meal with salad and chicken, uses skimmed milk instead full fat ETC. ETC. This is a generalisation but most people follow those sort of procedures when decided to diet.
After 4 weeks of this they will have lost some bodyweight, some of that body fat. They will then associate said weight loss with the new foods they are eating; rather than the calorie deficit that these new foods have created. Salads, vegetables, lean meats and low GI (glycaemic index) carbs such as brown rice, quinoa, oats etc. are filling and generally leave you feeling satisfied for longer. 500kcal of chicken, rice and veg is ALOT harder to eat than 500kcal's worth of microwavable lasagne, thus causing the dieter to generally eat LESS when eating 'clean'. These 'clean' foods do not have magic fat loss properties, its the reduction in kcal brought about by switching from processed, calorie dense foods which are easier to eat in large quantities, to these lighter unprocessed foods that causes the weight loss. This is something people tend to misinterpret and thus contribute to the weight loss confusion; person a) will proudly tell their friend that the secret to their fat loss was simply no carbohydrates after 6pm or by eating less red meat and more white fish but fail to realise the REAL reason why this worked; calorie reduction. The friend then desperately tries this but of course this will only work dependant on the friends overall diet and kcal intake in relation to BMR.
I'm not saying that kcal intake is the absolute be all and end all to weight management, because its not. Im not advocating a whatever fits into your kcal and you'll loose weight approach. Health is number 1, I always advocate a 'clean' eating approach; consuming MOST of your kcal from unprocessed, fresh produce. Fresh meats and fish, good quaility dairy and fibre rich carbohydrate sources aswell as nutrient dense fruit and vegetables. Allowing a small percentage of overall kcal to be derived from 'dirty' food, if you wish, will not harm your weight loss goals; as long as you eat within your BMR.
In summary, Kcal will have the most bearing on weight management and that eating 'clean' generally causes weight loss because of the reduction of kcal associated with choosing these foods over denser, calorie rich processed foods. Not because of some magical weightloss property in certain foodstuffs; which so frequently people are lead to believe. Track Kcal; apply science and common sense to your weight management and take out the guesswork. Eat mostly unprocessed foods, rich in micronutrients, but allow yourselves to eat foods that you enjoy as this WILL help in the long run.
For more information on dieting and how to apply it to yourself to help reach your goals, message me at rossi01@hotmail.co.uk, via www.facebook.com/naturalaesthet1cs or www.youtube.com/naturalaestheticstv
Natural Aesthetics - Dream and Achieve
Ross Newham
Thursday, 13 March 2014
NATURAL AESTHETICS Competition Training Program 2014
Day 1 [upper]
Incline DB's - 5x5
BB row - 5x5
Military Press - 5x5
Low row - 3x10
Rear delt rows - 3x10
Close Grip bench - 5x5
DB hammer curls - 3x10
Day 2 [lower]
Back squat - 5x5
Leg Press - 5x12-->4
Hamstring curls - 5x5
Calves - 3x10
+cardio (25min)
+Ab circuit
Day 3 [upper]
BB bench press - 5x5
Pull-ups - 5x5
DB Shoulder Press - 5x5
DB Flys - 3x10
DB Laterals/upright rows - 3x10
Cheat curls - 5x5
Bar Pushdowns - 3x10
Day 4 [lower]
Deadlift - 5x5
Front Squat - 5x5
Hamstring Curl - 3x10
Calves - 3x10
+cardio (25min)
+Ab circuit
+ Cardio (HIIT) 8x30sec sprints/60sec recovery - on Day 5
Notes -
* 5x5 will usually indicate 5 sets of 5 including ramping sets, only last set will be a true 'working set'.
* Occasionally, I may veer away from the layout of the program during a particular session and blast a compound exercise for more sets than prescribed.
* Attempting to increase, or at the very least fighting to maintain strength, in the big compound movements will be of the upmost importance.
Aiming to beat the size achieved last year:
Natural Aesthetics - Dream and Achieve
Ross
Monday, 10 February 2014
The Optimal Rep for Muscle Building.
During my last Bench Press session I did my usual working sets, steadily easing back into moderate/heavy loads. I had lightly strained my pec a couple of weeks back so I'm not quite back up to full strength levels. I finished up with 110kg for 5 reps; the speed was good but well below what I'd been doing 2-3 weeks ago. I'm startling to add more frequency of training to the bench again so it should be up to 120kg+ for 5 in 2 weeks.
After the regular training sets, myself and my training partner for this particular session opted for some band work. We looped one side of the band around the barbell and the other around a heavy dumbell placed directly under the bar on the floor. We could then create more tension by twisting the dumbell around to create extra loops in the bands.
We did a few sets, progressively adding more weight to the bar and extra loops to the bands. For the last set I asked my trainer partner to push down on the negative portion of the rep. So not only was the band adding more tension towards the easier half of the positive phase of movement (lockout), the negative phase of the movement was also made more difficult by the extra load.
Remember, one can handle a lot more weight during the negative phase of the lift than the positive phase; between 120-140%. It would be a waste not to incorporate 'forced negatives' into your training routine at some point, although bear in mind that they are extremely taxing so use sparingly!!
During the positive phase of movement, the lockout is generally far easier to execute than the bottom half. By adding bands this is no longer true as the tension is increased the further the bar moves away from the chest. Added to forced Negatives this makes a brutal combination; perhaps in terms of tension, as close to optimal as your ever going to get!
Ross - Natural Aesthetics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)