Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Training Q&A => Topic started by: TheAnimal on November 11, 2006, 06:29:24 PM
-
Ok... this is the plan I want DOMS after every workout I will ensure that the elements of periodisation and variety are implemented to achieve this... It will be DOMS at all cost.
Periodisation is of my main concern within this topic.
So, the current set/rep schemes I know of and utilise are:
German Volume Training(10setsof10)
5 sets 5 reps(strength)
5 sets of 8
5 sets of 10-12
I have all the movements nailed after lots of experiance now I am trying to take the training to new levels and experiance DOMS like never before ensuring I don't adapt to one particular method. I am aware that low reps is important(for continued strength gains and test. output) and so is the pump(growth hormone output - lactic acid responses) experianced in the higher rep ranges.
My question and knowledge I wish to derive in this thread for those of you whom experiance a lot DOMS is how often do use different routines and which routines do you use. I will continue trial and error in this periodisation program to achieve the optimum for muscle growth as we all know that the human body is extremly adaptive and simply going into the gym and doing the same rep/set scheme is not entirely effective.
Thanks, for your input.
-
I want DOMS after every workout. It will be DOMS at all cost
Why?
-
So I can grow ;D
-
So I can grow ;D
DOMS = Hypertrophy = Myth
-
DOMS = Hypertrophy = Myth
Very debatable, nothing conclusive. Intuitively & from experience, I think it does matter.
-
i get sore the day after every workout every time no matter what. i dont understand how people don't get sore.
-
You're the exception, and/or aren't training as often.
-
Taking the DOM's highway to muscle growth might lead to a dead end. There is no suggestion that delayed anything will increase muscle size. (but you will find some grant research papers that try to prove this point, but they offer no solid evidence of proof) Following that thread, hitting one's arm with a 2X4, so many times a week, will create soreness (DOM, a form of) the next few following day's. Also a short pump period will follow that arm hitting. So can we expect 18" guns in three month's?
Two major factors (among other complex matters) encourage a pattern for hypertrophy in the tissue it's self; sarcoplasmic (fluid, as; blood/water ) & myofibrils (deep tissue fiber recruitment). Neither is governed by the DOM reaction.
If you workout with serious intent and a logical training plan you will make good gains, with or without ever approaching unneeded DOM. Or for that matter, even getting sore at all. Good Luck.
-
pumpster are you talking about me?
-
Ya, the degree of DOMS varies; some very rarely get it no matter what, others quite the opposite, many in between. Also affected by frequency & intensity of training.
Whether DOMS makes a difference is unknown; in which case the wise path if one wants to cover all bases is to take no chances and achieve DOMS as often as possible. ;)
Many are sure just from experience that it makes a difference, as i do. Vince Basile's one who's lifted for decades and believes strongly in the advantages in creating DOMS as often as possible.
-
Taking the DOM's highway to muscle growth might lead to a dead end. There is no suggestion that delayed anything will increase muscle size. (but you will find some grant research papers that try to prove this point, but they offer no solid evidence of proof) Following that thread, hitting one's arm with a 2X4, so many times a week, will create soreness (DOM, a form of) the next few following day's. Also a short pump period will follow that arm hitting. So can we expect 18" guns in three month's?
Two major factors (among other complex matters) encourage a pattern for hypertrophy in the tissue it's self; sarcoplasmic (fluid, as; blood/water ) & myofibrils (deep tissue fiber recruitment). Neither is governed by the DOM reaction.
If you workout with serious intent and a logical training plan you will make good gains, with or without ever approaching unneeded DOM. Or for that matter, even getting sore at all. Good Luck.
Thanks for clearing it up... I will concentrate on periodisation but with less emphasis on achieving soreness just high intensity and effort.
-
Animal: I have three major periodization cycles in my yearly training. Each will last from 6-8 weeks. Six if I feel gains are slowing down and are not what they should be for what ever reason (bored). Eight weeks is the cut off period, as a max effort, even if I'm still making some progress. After each cycle is done, I will take a week or two off of training.
One cycle is GVT. Next is Power Rack training, including true (not breaks or burns like in BB'ing) partials, dead stops, lockouts, holds,etc (my favorite way to train). The third is general BB'ing/lifting. Rep's are usually higher, like 12 to 15 and as high high as 20 with Squats, BB Hacks, DL's, Hi-Pulls, etc. This is volume training but not in the usual sense. More designed towards the PL'ing/Olympic lifting workout style. Trying to increase total weight (LBs/ton's) lifted each workout. I keep an exercise log and try to beat the last workout in total ton's lifted.
When beginning to work into each new cycle I may be a little sore after the first workout or two, but nothing outstanding. When increasing the focus and weight during each workout I really don't feel any discomfort from training. I actually feel very hyped and on top of the world. Good Luck.
-
Thanks for clearing it up... I will concentrate on periodisation but with less emphasis on achieving soreness just high intensity and effort.
It's not clear at all; I call BS on anyone who claims to know conclusively. Some of the top BBs and trainers believe DOMS is vital. Here's a recent thread:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=101846.275
In the absence of conclusive evidence, it's smarter to cover all bases by going for it. DOMS as often as possible, through any number of training approaches, using moderate reps, reasonably short rests and progressive resistance.
Personally it's fairly obvious to me from experimentation that intensity + trial & error to find the most effective exercises = superior mind-muscle connections = more intense muscle stimulation + consequent increase in DOMS frequency. While it's possible to grow without it, DOMS is anecdotally a vital ingredient.DOMS provides concrete evidence that the muscle's been effectively worked; an absence of DOMS does not provide that.
-
if i workout easy i am sore the day after. but if i give it 100% percent i am not sore untill two days after. its weird...sort of like the muscle is to fatigued to be sore untill it gets at leats a full day of rest.
-
DOMS = Hypertrophy = Myth
Do you have any EXPERIENCE with training or do you just regurgitate the "studies" and crap articles you read off the web? Training is done in the gym not from a book or the internet. Years of lifting the iron make you an expert.
-
so because i get sore very easily what does that make me?
-
so because i get sore very easily what does that make me?
Who knows. ;D
-
It is hard to dissmiss the fact that when we change around exercises, routines or experiance higher intensity that increased DOMS is a direct correlation to this with a few exceptions. Instinctively many of us whom have trained from advanced to beginners see this connection I do still see it as an indication of a training session succession or failure.
-
Then why did you so readily say this after asking the question in detailed fashion?
Thanks for clearing it up... I will concentrate on periodisation but with less emphasis on achieving soreness just high intensity and effort.
The points in your first post are intriguing; periodization's not highly studied & should be explored, just as you've outlined. Many of the programs that are supposed to work may work only for the short-term:
Ok... this is the plan I want DOMS after every workout I will ensure that the elements of periodisation and variety are implemented to achieve this... It will be DOMS at all cost.
Periodisation is of my main concern within this topic.
My question and knowledge I wish to derive in this thread for those of you whom experiance a lot DOMS is how often do use different routines and which routines do you use. I will continue trial and error in this periodisation program to achieve the optimum for muscle growth as we all know that the human body is extremly adaptive and simply going into the gym and doing the same rep/set scheme is not entirely effective.
-
Actually years of lifting the iron does not always make one an expert. Wish it were so. If your one of those people who have been lifting for 15- 20 year's and pretty much look about the same as the average construction worker, I wouldn't think you had reached any were near true potential. Twenty years experience, yes. But experience does not always mean workable knowledge when it comes to developing body muscle mass, power and being a BB'ing success. Sad part is is that a lot of these 15-20 year vet's, not gaining near the muscle size they always wanted, will diet down, looking like a skinned rabbit, and proclaim themselves as successful BB'ers. But 3% body fat does not mean a muscular and impressive body. It just means your skinny.
I read the thread that The Pumpster kindly offered. I do respect Basile and his personal experience. But will have to agree with CT (read his interesting stuff at T-nation from time to time) and the degree, or lack of, DOM would have on obtaining progressive muscular growth. I find that highly trained PL'ers and Olympic lifters (as well as heavy duty, serious BB'ers) rarely get sore from the huge weight's used. Because they have superior conditioning, the body/CNS is adjusted to these higher levels of stress. Micro-Trauma (recovery and the repair of) tissue/cell rupture will not need to send out a three alarm siren that they have been worked hard, by indicating soreness. Good Luck.
-
Do you have any EXPERIENCE with training
Years of lifting the iron make you an expert.
I guess that makes me an expert ::)
-
I was merely trying to make the point that DOMS has no per se link with growth.
Often times people who get sore all the time (due to low training frequency) grow poorly, people who don't get sore (they train more often) grow better. Add to the vast differences in who gets sore and who doesn't. People usually get the most sore at the beginning of a training cycle, and grow best at the end (when DOMS is less). Many people never get sore but the muscle grows just fine. Contrarily, some people always get sore, and don’t grow (take calves for example)
The point was simply that DOMS doesn't tell you jack about growth. Growth tells you if you're growing, not DOMS.
According to a relatively recent (and thorough) study, DOMS is more associated with the connective tissue surrounding the muscle than muscle fibers, and highly associated with the inflammation response in the connective tissue. Diet also greatly influences immune function (such as immune cells and the chemicals that they release), so diet (especially carbs) can play a role in DOMS.
Malm C, Sjodin TL, Sjoberg B, Lenkei R, et. al. Leukocytes, cytokines, growth factors and hormones in human skeletal muscle and blood after uphill or downhill running. J Physiol. 2004 May 1;556(Pt 3):983-1000. Epub 2004 Feb 6. (a very extensive study).
Exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation: fact or fiction? Acta Physiol Scand. 2001 Mar;171(3):233-9.
-
Pumpster suggested I look at this thread.
Well, hypertrophy is a physical process and opinions might be right or wrong but have nothing to do with reality. What I mean is that just because you strongly believe something doesn't mean that it is true. Some are lucky to discover the truth but most will believe what they know from personal anecdotal experience.
What is known about DOMS? Lots of irrelevant stuff as far as hypertrophy is concerned. They, the scientists, are more interested in helping athletes overcome the soreness! That shows that the scientists are mostly university staff who have typical anti-bodybuilding attitudes. When scientists ask the right questions they might design research to know more about DOMS and hypertrophy.
The test for the truth of hypertrophy theories is measured growth. This is not as easy as it seems because muscles can increase in size because of various responses.
What do I believe from my experience, reading and observations? DOMS is associated with rapid growth. Get a muscle very sore and then keep it sore. Eat enough so you are gaining weight and you should grow rapidly. 1/10 inch per workout for arms and calves is achievable and perhaps more than this can be produced. There is hardly any research on maximum hypertrophy except in animal studies. Such research suggests that humans have way more hypertrophy capacity if they can trigger it.
What usually occurs in bodybuilding is that most people who have some success with training will stick with what they know and believe and dismiss anything that doesn't agree with them. I find posting on bodybuilding sites to be almost worthless. Occasionally, there are individuals with capable minds who can process information in a sensible and rational manner. Clearly, all theories cannot be true. Some theories are closer to the truth than others. Who is to judge this and by what method? There are no univerally accepted experts in human hypertrophy. Therefore, arguing on discussion boards is frustrating and time-consuming. I persist but it is not at all a fruitful enterprise. People make too many general statements and soon enough things degenerate into some sort of quagmire instead of a sensible discussion. Instead of contibuting to a process towards the truth, what happens is that most bodybuilders go away unenlightened while retaining their pet beliefs and theories.
-
You say keeping it sore Vince? Do you suggest working a muscle before you recover from the soreness? whenever i do that i can hardly lift.
-
The essence of bodybuilding is about three things. Stimulus, frequency and nutrition. If you don't have each of these ingredients optimal you are unlikely to grow much at all. Most people equate bodybuilding with a mysterious process that takes time. That is nonsense. Growth should be rapid and measurable after each effective workout. We need to find out what exactly is necessary and how much training is sufficient for hypertrophy. Ditto for nutrition.
Science tells us what we anecdotally know. Trained muscles are hard to keep growing. What happens is that muscles adapt and when they do the resistance to growth prevents further hypertrophy. You have to avoid triggering the RBE or repeated bout effect. The way to do this is to get the target muscle very sore and then retrain it before that soreness goes away. How often? Not sure. Perhaps every 3rd day might be the best compromise. Even with sore muscles you can still train them heavy. What you need to do is warm up doing many, many lighter sets while adding resistance after every set. I recommend starting out with 40 to 50 reps for the first set and adding resistance and dropping reps until you get to around 12 to 15 reps. Then do sets every 3 minutes or so with the maximum resistance. Don't let the reps drop below about 8 reps or you won't get much benefit. If you do 5 reps you will also grow but are courting injuries and your form might deteriorate. It is crucial that you actually put severe tension on target muscles and not those assisting you to move that muscle. I am not sure how many maximum sets are necessary but at least 5 might be sufficient to induce some hypertrophy. It is unknown or established if many more sets will contribute any more to growth. There is speculation that training from 4 to 8 hours on a muscle might induce maximum hypertrophy for that day. Can you imagine any university endorsing such research protocols?
If you don't gain weight you are probably not growing. Supplements, I believe, are probably not required. Too much suspect research and too much BS from supplement companies and magazine writers who are not authorities in hypertrophy.
-
so are you saying that you should be sore all the time? i am saying this because if you train while sore then how will the soreness go away?
-
The theory of hypertrophy might have to be rewritten. We all believed that you trained a muscle, then let it adapt and recover, and then you trained it again. Research has shown that this leads to the repeated bout effect. In other words, your muscles get stronger and you will find it increasingly difficult to trigger more hypertrophy. That is exactly what I found. If you cannot get the target muscle sore then it is unlikely to grow much at all. If you can persistently get them sore then you should be able to grow rapidly. The trick is not to let the muscle totally recover. Keep the muscle partly sore and that happens by the 3rd day. Warm up slowly and then do heaps of sets with the maximum resistance. That should sustain the soreness. If you cannot keep the muscle sore then keep trying other things to achieve that state. The lack of soreness following training, is, I believe, evidence of the repeated bout effect. The plain truth is millions of guys are training heavy and hard but few are growing. It is my conjecture that only those who get DOMS consistently will keep growing quickly. I insist that trainees are also gaining body weight.
The idea that you train, rest, recover and train again might be a huge mistake. Consider champion athletes. Do they swim or run every third day or twice a week? No, they train daily yet still make gains. Now, this goes against what we believe in bodybuilding. Who says you have to recover in order to grow? Where is the research about that phenomenon? The trouble is that several bodybuilders, including Mike Mentzer, used Dr Hans Selye's Stress of Life book to build their bodybuilding theories around. It may have been a misunderstanding of how growth occurs in muscles.
As far as I am concerned, I believe absolutely that DOMS is associated with hypertrophy in my body. I assume this is true of other people as well. If I sustain that soreness in a muscle it grows rapidly and I get superstrong very quickly as well.
-
The theory of hypertrophy might have to be rewritten. We all believed that you trained a muscle, then let it adapt and recover, and then you trained it again. Research has shown that this leads to the repeated bout effect. In other words, your muscles get stronger and you will find it increasingly difficult to trigger more hypertrophy. That is exactly what I found. If you cannot get the target muscle sore then it is unlikely to grow much at all. If you can persistently get them sore then you should be able to grow rapidly. The trick is not to let the muscle totally recover. Keep the muscle partly sore and that happens by the 3rd day. Warm up slowly and then do heaps of sets with the maximum resistance. That should sustain the soreness. If you cannot keep the muscle sore then keep trying other things to achieve that state. The lack of soreness following training, is, I believe, evidence of the repeated bout effect. The plain truth is millions of guys are training heavy and hard but few are growing. It is my conjecture that only those who get DOMS consistently will keep growing quickly. I insist that trainees are also gaining body weight.
The idea that you train, rest, recover and train again might be a huge mistake. Consider champion athletes. Do they swim or run every third day or twice a week? No, they train daily yet still make gains. Now, this goes against what we believe in bodybuilding. Who says you have to recover in order to grow? Where is the research about that phenomenon? The trouble is that several bodybuilders, including Mike Mentzer, used Dr Hans Selye's Stress of Life book to build their bodybuilding theories around. It may have been a misunderstanding of how growth occurs in muscles.
As far as I am concerned, I believe absolutely that DOMS is associated with hypertrophy in my body. I assume this is true of other people as well. If I sustain that soreness in a muscle it grows rapidly and I get superstrong very quickly as well.
No offence VINCE, but i presume that now that u know more about training properly than mentzer etc, i take it ur physique is superior to his.
Not bad mouthing u bro its just weird that present pro's and pro's b4 them wer all training wrong, and u r right?!
davie
-
i am open to "new" things but would training sore muscles make it so that you are sore 24/7?
-
No offence VINCE, but i presume that now that u know more about training properly than mentzer etc, i take it ur physique is superior to his.
Not bad mouthing u bro its just weird that present pro's and pro's b4 them wer all training wrong, and u r right?!
davie
Davie,
Since you ask so many questions on this board & clearly are still learning, why the personal stuff? Why try to diminish potentially useful training info by reducing it to a pissing contest based on who has the better physique?
As far as Mentzer's theories, neither he nor anyone else is the last word. That is in fact why Yates used a variation of HIT that included ballistic movements that wasn't espoused by Mentzer.
Maybe you've been fooled by the fact that most of the central figures in HIT, including Mentzer and Arthur Jones, always had such an arrogant self-righteousness about them. Some find it easy to believe that they must've figured out the holy grail of training approaches, when in fact they've only got some very valid parts.
-
Our results strongly support that the myofibrillar and cytoskeletal alterations, considered to be the hallmarks of DOMS, reflect an adaptive remodeling of the myofibrils.
;D
These findings therefore support our previous suggestion that muscle fibres subjected to eccentric contractions adapt to unaccustomed activity by the addition of new sarcomeres
;)
-
to avoid the repeated bout effect you MUST increase volume. i would say only one muscle group per workout lets say delts. ive you truly train delts for 1-1.5 hours with small rest periods you are garanteed soreness. same with about any bodypart. when you dont get sore doing that you will have to increase to 2hours it should take you a looong time to adapt to that and not get sore. if i did abs for 2 hours straight they actually look ever so slightly different after a workout like that, the split and tear during the workout (growth, or splicing or splitting the muscle)
-
to avoid the repeated bout effect you MUST increase volume.
No. Upping volume is but one form of increased intensity. You must increase intensity to overload the muscle. That can be achieved any number of ways, as seen in the contrast of Arthur Jones' and Vince Gironda's routines.
Besides which, increases in volume has practical limits. Doing 40 sets per muscle can actually be counterproductive.
-
No. Upping volume is but one form of increased intensity. You must increase intensity to overload the muscle. That can be achieved any number of ways, as seen in the contrast of Arthur Jones' and Vince Gironda's routines.
Besides which, increases in volume has practical limits. Doing 40 sets per muscle can actually be counterproductive.
[/quote
but still upping the volume is increasing the intensity. causing adaption to progression of a higher an higher volume routine still with short rest periods as you possibly can without causing injury and still managing to lift a decent-light amount of weight with perfect or good form
-
We seem to use similar words but have different meanings for them. There seems to be some incommensurability re various bodybuilding methods and theories. They all cannot be right. At best, most are partly true and mostly false. It seems we are arguing about which method is the best. Pray tell what criterion is used to sort out the methods? It surely cannot be a matter of opinion.
There are many factors in moving systems and they can be notorious to control. That is why scientific studies try to control all the factors relating to experiments. That may be very difficult to do. People vary considerably when doing exercises.
Let us consider a statement made by daddywaddy. Ah, what a noble thing the internet is with all this anonymity. He wrote: "to avoid the repeated bout effect you MUST increase volume."
There are many things one can change re exercises. Resistance, range of movement, concentric or eccentric, speed, form, exercise selection, repetitions, rest, etc. Volume is just one factor out of many that can affect results.
Does increasing volume always lead to more hypertrophy? I wonder. If it did then workouts over a long period of time would take longer and longer to do and eventually one would be working out all day. That is clearly not practical. We can conclude that this factor is not sufficient to generate continuous hypertrophy.
Intensity is a trickier factor. Since it has been defined as the percentage of what one can lift for one maximum rep then it is clear this factor can always be attempted. It appears that doing 1 rep is a very dangerous enterprize for large muscles. Strength might be gained but hypertrophy does not always accompany strength increases. What seems to be important here are thresholds above which hypertrophy is stimulated and below which nothing additional occurs.
We always default to experience when considering various methods. If some advocate extreme conditions we have to assess whether that method is both safe and practical. Clearly getting injured ends the hypertrophy quest. Whatever the ultimate method is it had better be safe. We can conclude that we cannot do just anything that might lead to more hypertrophy. We have to keep our muscles from tearing and being injured. There seems to be some anecdotal reports that high intensity training with very heavy weights and low reps can be dangerous and some bodybuilders have torn muscles. Biceps, pecs, quads, lats, etc. Once you tear a biceps your bodybuilding career will virtually be over. Dorian Yates was given gifts when he competed with a torn biceps. Well, that is my opinion, anyway. The bottom line is no one wants to tear pecs or biceps because they are more or less permanent injuries.
Do some of you fellas comprehend what I have been writing here? Either what I say is right or it is wrong. I am making some controversial statements. From the responses it seems some just don't get it. Someone posted research supporting that DOMS is an indication of hypertrophy. At least severe training using eccentric movements led to hypertrophy in that one study. We need more research to confirm this result.
I am suggesting that we abandon conventional theory about rest and recovery and try to keep the window of growth open by additional training while the muscle has not completely recovered. You see, we have to conjecture here when it should be known what happens in growing muscles. If we knew exactly what was going on and when we would know when to re-stimulate the muscle.
Muscles are part of living systems. If we go back millions of years to when we evolved then perhaps we can speculate about what conditions existed for our ancestors. Suppose someone was starving and got into a bad fight with some animal and lost. Our hungry ancestor would go to bed hungry and wake up sore the next day. Would he be unable to seek food and fight for it because of that soreness? If so then such individuals would surely have died. So it seems that natural selection would have favoured those who could fight even though sore. That means we can function even though our muscles are sore. We can perform at near optimal levels with sore muscles. I conclude, then, that we do have the capacity to grow and adapt in such extreme conditions. What bodybuilding is about is harvesting those extreme conditions and utilizing and controlling them to achieve maximum growth. If I am wrong then we will have to resort to conventional training and argue about sets and reps forever.
Someone suggested that my theories were refuted because I was not as big as those who trained differently. Since I wasn't as big my methods must be inferior. Well, even Mike Mentzer argued against that idea when he debated Arnold. He argued that Arnold didn't know how to train properly even though Arnold was larger. The test of the truth of a bodybuilding theory is in the results. Since 1950s all of this is contaminated because of the use of agents that can be taken to assist or enhance growth. Today, we have no idea how much growth is natural and how much is attributed to drug use. That is really sad for bodybuilding. Nowadays the reckless seem to be rewarded.
I would put my theories up against Mike Mentzer and they can be tested and compared. Let us take a group of identical twins who are bodybuilders. Suppose they all train naturally and all have 17 inch arms. Does anyone here believe you can get one group to gain 1 inch on their arms in a month? That is what DOMS training predicts. I doubt HIT can effect that much hypertrophy in a group in a month. I could be wrong. Where the heck are the experiments to settle these questions?
-
Nutrition is everything.
-
ALWAYS SORE...What do you have to say about this?
-
If DOMS is associated or with rapid growth then the pain is most welcome! Those who have not grown rapidly will be elated to see and feel the rapid hypertrophy. DOMS is pain => growth => satisfaction => more DOMS => more growth =>, etc., etc., =>elation.
-
author=Vince Basile link=topic=106285.msg1544559#msg1544559 date=1163641335]
Let us consider a statement made by daddywaddy. Ah, what a noble thing the internet is with all this anonymity. He wrote: "to avoid the repeated bout effect you MUST increase volume."
There are many things one can change re exercises. Resistance, range of movement, concentric or eccentric, speed, form, exercise selection, repetitions, rest, etc. Volume is just one factor out of many that can affect results.
Does increasing volume always lead to more hypertrophy? I wonder. If it did then workouts over a long period of time would take longer and longer to do and eventually one would be working out all day. That is clearly not practical. We can conclude that this factor is not sufficient to generate continuous hypertrophy.
--------------------------------------------------
----------
yes workouts still must be intense (with short rest periods) and would have to increase in duration in order to progress. intensity is using a weight and repping it out with as short of rest periods AS POSSIBLE. this is the only alternative. we have all tried hit and were 'intense' and pushed our very hardest on that set....but you need to push your very hardest on MANY sets in a row over a LONG period of time to progress. this is much 'safer' then trying to lift a new maximum weight each workout, and risking injury to get the heavy weight up, im sure we have all been there
-
author=Vince Basile link=topic=106285.msg1544559#msg1544559 date=1163641335]
Let us consider a statement made by daddywaddy. Ah, what a noble thing the internet is with all this anonymity. He wrote: "to avoid the repeated bout effect you MUST increase volume."
There are many things one can change re exercises. Resistance, range of movement, concentric or eccentric, speed, form, exercise selection, repetitions, rest, etc. Volume is just one factor out of many that can affect results.
Does increasing volume always lead to more hypertrophy? I wonder. If it did then workouts over a long period of time would take longer and longer to do and eventually one would be working out all day. That is clearly not practical. We can conclude that this factor is not sufficient to generate continuous hypertrophy.
--------------------------------------------------
----------
yes workouts still must be intense (with short rest periods) and would have to increase in duration in order to progress. intensity is using a weight and repping it out with as short of rest periods AS POSSIBLE. this is the only alternative. we have all tried hit and were 'intense' and pushed our very hardest on that set....but you need to push your very hardest on MANY sets in a row over a LONG period of time to progress. this is much 'safer' then trying to lift a new maximum weight each workout, and risking injury to get the heavy weight up, im sure we have all been there
along with an ever increasing duration of a workout with short rest periods for maximal intensity and time under tension, you also need an excessive amount of calories, mainly from fat and carbs
-
It is always refreshing to hear the opinion of a true expert!
What is intensity? Apparently it means different things to different people. Is daddywaddy right when he advocates "intense (with short rest periods) and would have to increase in duration in order to progress"? He defines 'intensity' as: "intensity is using a weight and repping it out with as short of rest periods AS POSSIBLE".
Larry Scott & Vince Gironda recommended such brutal training. Is that the most effective way to train? Well, few people train that way and yet many top guys are large. Therefore, we can conclude that such training may be used by some to get huge but it is not necessary to do so. It is, then, a sufficient method. We can say the same thing about Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty training. Perhaps a sufficient but not necessary method. Likewise, conventional trainers like Arnold did various volume methods. How is it possible that different methods can generate impressive size? Is there something common to all those methods? We have to conclude they are all doing something similar.
If we take the equation: resistance training/time plus nutrition => hypertrophy, then it is clear that different values can be put in the equation and get the same result. HIT suggests we increase resistance but reduce time. Larry Scott reduces training intervals so gets more tension in the same period of time. Arnold simply labours through but ends up at the same place. Of course the exact formula is much more complicated than depicted.
The problem with reducing intervals to increase 'intensity' is that you end up using less resistance. My solution is to keep the resistance high but rest longer. You do another muscle between sets and usually an opposing muscle. Eg, biceps and triceps. My conjecture is that the amount of high mechanical tension can be best provided by doing many, many maximum sets with a big resistance.
Big muscles are needed to shift a lot of weight a lot of times. That is the bottom line of hypertrophy. Exactly how much is necessary is what is not known. We have a clue about what is sufficient.
-
The problem with reducing intervals to increase 'intensity' is that you end up using less resistance. My solution is to keep the resistance high but rest longer. You do another muscle between sets and usually an opposing muscle. Eg, biceps and triceps. My conjecture is that the amount of high mechanical tension can be best provided by doing many, many maximum sets with a big resistance.
You're at least getting in the right direction by implementing longer resting periods between the sets.
No offence, but you don't seem to know a whole lot about the way muscle fibers work. They either twitch, or they don't. So in order to "stimulate" all muscle fibers, you would need to recover from the previous set completely.
The strongest fibers are also those who works the shortest amount of time, usually 2.5 seconds. Those fibers also need the longest time for recovery.
I suggest you take into account how muscle fibers work. That is one reason why HIT never worked, it didn't allow the fibers to recover for the next excersise.
-
Well, Hedgehog, show me where the lads on HST come up with effective programs? They seem to know heaps of stuff about the details of muscles. There are two ways to approach training. Perhaps combining both is the best way to go. One is to read the research and exercise physiology books on muscles. The other is to train by trial and error and evolve a method. After almost 47 years training I am starting to know my muscles. I don't have to read anything to train effectively. By simple experience you can see how long you have to rest to be able to repeat the same number of reps in a maximum lift. That amount of time is about 3 minutes + - 1 minute. I am talking about 8 to 10 reps. If you go heavier you might need to rest longer. The trouble with resting too long is that the pump is not facilitated. So somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes rest seems about right.
Whatever one comes up with through experience, it should agree with research findings. If it does not, then there is something wrong about your method.
I made statements about DOMS and then found my conclusions were consistent with research. Well, the research was consistent with what I found because my theory preceeded the evidence. If the research contradicted my theory that would require that I explain it and if I could not I would have to change or abandon my theory. We all know that most of us would rather do anything else than abandon our cherished beliefs about training! I wonder why so many equate training theories with intelligence? If someone beats you at chess it means they are a better chess player and not necessarily smarter. If someone has a better theory of hypertrophy he will never get any credit on these discussion boards! That is what makes participating a waste of time and energy.
-
Well, Hedgehog, show me where the lads on HST come up with effective programs? They seem to know heaps of stuff about the details of muscles. There are two ways to approach training. Perhaps combining both is the best way to go. One is to read the research and exercise physiology books on muscles. The other is to train by trial and error and evolve a method. After almost 47 years training I am starting to know my muscles. I don't have to read anything to train effectively. By simple experience you can see how long you have to rest to be able to repeat the same number of reps in a maximum lift. That amount of time is about 3 minutes + - 1 minute. I am talking about 8 to 10 reps. If you go heavier you might need to rest longer. The trouble with resting too long is that the pump is not facilitated. So somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes rest seems about right.
Whatever one comes up with through experience, it should agree with research findings. If it does not, then there is something wrong about your method.
I made statements about DOMS and then found my conclusions were consistent with research. Well, the research was consistent with what I found because my theory preceeded the evidence. If the research contradicted my theory that would require that I explain it and if I could not I would have to change or abandon my theory. We all know that most of us would rather do anything else than abandon our cherished beliefs about training! I wonder why so many equate training theories with intelligence? If someone beats you at chess it means they are a better chess player and not necessarily smarter. If someone has a better theory of hypertrophy he will never get any credit on these discussion boards! That is what makes participating a waste of time and energy.
Sorry for coming across a bit harsh.
My point is, that either a muscle fiber has recovered and can work, or it cannot. It cannot work "a little bit".
This needs to be taken into account, and HST doesn't, it appears.
Few but heavy sets, with long rest periods, instead of the shorter rest period that is recommended in traditional training, and HST.
Look at the biggest powerlifters and how they train. Usually long rests between sets.
It's a suggestion for you to look into. I did it, and I am getting good results from it.
And I definitely agree with you about how hard it is to admit you're wrong.
I used to be really into HIT a couple of years ago... Oh brother... :-[
YIP
Zack
-
The problem with reducing intervals to increase 'intensity' is that you end up using less resistance. My solution is to keep the resistance high but rest longer. You do another muscle between sets and usually an opposing muscle. Eg, biceps and triceps. My conjecture is that the amount of high mechanical tension can be best provided by doing many, many maximum sets with a big resistance.
Big muscles are needed to shift a lot of weight a lot of times. That is the bottom line of hypertrophy. Exactly how much is necessary is what is not known. We have a clue about what is sufficient.
using more weight and resting 'slightly' longer is comparable to less weight rest shorter. they are kinda the same thing if you catch my drift. more then likely the same poundage total lifted in a givin period of time will be roughly the same with either method...........so to progress use either method but continually increase volume . this requires more nutrient demands, more need to repair,more EFFORT to do a LONGER routine...Its not practical but getting to the 'ultimate huge/ripped level of bodybuilding' is not practical (for time constraints)
-
using more weight and resting 'slightly' longer is comparable to less weight rest shorter. they are kinda the same thing if you catch my drift. more then likely the same poundage total lifted in a givin period of time will be roughly the same with either method...........so to progress use either method but continually increase volume . this requires more nutrient demands, more need to repair,more EFFORT to do a LONGER routine...Its not practical but getting to the 'ultimate huge/ripped level of bodybuilding' is not practical (for time constraints)
this is similar to 'muscle maturaty' as we get older our muscles can look ever so sligtly different in size and vascularity , seperation ect. the more you train , the more you mature a muscle
-
Hedge i am pretty into training similar to HIT (apart from i begin workouts with power moves, cleans etc), i feel its fairly solid, and i kinda agree that u can train hard or u can train long, u just cant do both....and it takes hard work to build muscles.
davie
-
using more weight and resting 'slightly' longer is comparable to less weight rest shorter. they are kinda the same thing if you catch my drift. more then likely the same poundage total lifted in a givin period of time will be roughly the same with either method...........
Resting shorter or longer with different weight is supposed to be the same, but it's worth trying both to see the differences. I'm going to have to go back and give 2 minute rests another chance instead of a minute and see what happens. Tried it and didn't like losing the pump, the absence of which removes some of the emotional engagement and seems to increase the possibility of injury IMO.
It would be helpful if any experiences are shared here, going forward.
-
do you guys not agree that , whatever 'method' takes the most 'effort' will probably work the best?....this means short restperiods everyset to FAILURE over a long ass grueling workout, it doesnt get any harder than that
-
Do you have any EXPERIENCE with training or do you just regurgitate the "studies" and crap articles you read off the web? Training is done in the gym not from a book or the internet. Years of lifting the iron make you an expert.
bump!
real experts come from years of active learning. i argued with my exercise phys teacher every day in college. She was all book knowlwdge. BS.
i have trained to failure for 10 years and have had DOMS every freakin day (different parts). I think my size and strength speak for themselves.
-
do you guys not agree that , whatever 'method' takes the most 'effort' will probably work the best?....this means short restperiods everyset to FAILURE over a long ass grueling workout, it doesnt get any harder than that
Sounds good but i think you have to try different ways, all involving similar intensity of effort & failure, then compare DOMS and development. In other words, try longer rests with heavier weight, try standard 1 minute rests + negative failure using partials, cheats, negatives, etc. then compare.
i have trained to failure for 10 years and have had DOMS every freakin day (different parts). I think my size and strength speak for themselves.
DOMS is a huge clue that you're doing something right, assuming moderate rep ranges and the use of fairly heavy but not overwhelming weight. The only thing addition would be to occasionally try different routines to see how DOMS or development compares to existing means.
-
if you only work one muscle group for 1-2 hours straight you are garanteed development everysingle workout only if calories are high
-
if you only work one muscle group for 1-2 hours straight you are garanteed development everysingle workout only if calories are high
Where did you get that? It's easily possible to overwork the muscle, resulting in loss of size.
-
Where did you get that? It's easily possible to overwork the muscle, resulting in loss of size.
ok so like there is some magical reprange?? or magical amount of sets and reps i highly doubtit. gaining muscle is about how much effort over time PERIOD
you can put 100% effort (hitting failure) into one or 2 sets and thats HIT
you can put 100% effort (hitting failure)into 100 sets with short rest peroids as possible
your hitting failure in both routines, its not hard to see which routine would logically be better
BUT you will not grow on EITHER if you are eating LOW FAT or LOW CARBS
-
Where did you get that? It's easily possible to overwork the muscle, resulting in loss of size.
have you ever spent hours doing pushups or curls? probably not because if you did while eating a shitload of food your muscles that you worked will be considerably bigger from the workout and nutrient influx and other things. you grow (expand) while you workout you REPAIR in your SLEEP
-
it annoyes me that these hitters some how magically can do 110 % in one set or 2 or whatever low volume protocol. you can only give 100% (hitting failure, or your maximum that your muscles will allow). you can only do the maximum (reps, poundage ect) that your muscles will allow ON ANY GIVEN SET. so "HITers" are no more intense than the next man. the mental part comes in when how long you want to actually stay in the gym and untill your energy stores (carbs and fat) are basically empty, then when this wall hits its time to get in some high fat and high carbs back into your body and continue training. it would be great to find something 'practical' that took less time, i guess you could just take steroids if you want to not spend a long time in the gym and have a fantastic physique. i guess working EXTREMELY hard for something is not something some of you people were taught as children....
-
my current routine in case you guys were interested is picking only ONE exercise but doing it 1-2 hours so you are basically only working one segment of the body part (peck deck mainly for upper chest) or long distance running at a fast pace for an hour (working hip flexors and hamstrings both get sore). i could do standing cleans bodybuilder style for 1-1.5 hours (working mainly traps and upper back).
-
really wish we could kick-out the unexperienced lifters from cluttering this thread and make bold statements that this or that work or do not. like someone else said you become and expert after many many years in the iron game
What's this about and why the pic of a so-so physique - the point is... ???
-
What's this about and why the pic of a so-so physique - the point is... ???
you're hater, obviously. and i wasnt even directing it at you , but you got offended so obviously you are a newbie and think you know everything because of 'what you read'
-
daddywaddy how long have you been training and what was your height,weight, and how fat were you when you first began?
-
you're hater, obviously. and i wasnt even directing it at you , but you got offended so obviously you are a newbie and think you know everything because of 'what you read'
You don't make a lot of sense and are talking AT, not with anyone else. No idea from your babbling who you're talking about, you didn't bother to tell us did you? Basically your posts seem to be about informing us that you know the truth along with a pic of an ok physique that proves what?
It's interesting to hear training perspectives of those who don't preach.
-
Pumpster has paid his dues and has been around a long time. He is not a beginner nor a knucklehead. I consider him a student of hypertrophy.
It is one thing to post thinking you alone know the truth and quite another to post and discuss the issues. The test of truth here is not the physique of the speaker, although that is important. The test of truth is whether others could gain rapidly using your method. It is possible, but highly unlikely, that some informed beginner might stumble upon the correct method of hypertrophy.
-
Pumpster has paid his dues and has been around a long time. He is not a beginner nor a knucklehead. I consider him a student of hypertrophy.
It is one thing to post thinking you alone know the truth and quite another to post and discuss the issues. The test of truth here is not the physique of the speaker, although that is important. The test of truth is whether others could gain rapidly using your method. It is possible, but highly unlikely, that some informed beginner might stumble upon the correct method of hypertrophy.
if your physique sucks then you are just all talk. i know what works
-
I think VB discussed something like this in a prior thread:
In The Rader Master Bodybuilding and Weight Gaining System, the program he developed could add up to 3/4 of an inch to a trainees arms in one day.
The program goes like this - pick a day when you can do nothing but train, eat and rest. You use just two exercises, one for triceps and one for biceps, and you do a set of each every hour for 12 hours. Use a weight lighter then your usual poundage's, and do not work to failure. Eating some protein every hour, massaging the muscles after each workout and to resting all you can, were also recommended.
-
The classic one day arm system, that The Pumpster offered, had been responsible for 1/16 to at least 1/4 inch(or more) permanent growth on some men. I've seem a few guy's gain from it. Can also be used on the delts & calves with effective results. Doesn't always work that well with larger muscle groups.
The game plan is to set aside a full day, usually 2 day's before and 2 or 3 day's after a regular workout. Taking a protein shake(s) will be a lot easier than trying to eat a full meal during the day, though a good breakfast is encouraged before starting. The idea is to keep a new supply of blood with-in the arms all day. At each hour (on the dot...important) a light set of tricep and bicep (1 to 2 sets each SS'ed usually...most say 1 set only...10 reps) are done. Do not grunt out the reps, these are just light pumping movements, with a weight that can be easily handled. Do not go anywhere near failure, probably 3 or 4 reps before. You do not want to over tax the CNS in this method of training. Defeats the whole purpose. The usually length is 8 hours, arms every hour. This can surprisingly be draining on the nervous system if any more is done. But feel free to experiment on you self's. But the main mistake most guy's make is of using too much weight. This is light volume training. Your doing set's, but one hour apart. Good Luck.
-
daddywaddy did you see my question above?
-
daddywaddy how long have you been training and what was your height,weight, and how fat were you when you first began?
probably around 6feet3 or 4 at 14 weighd about 215 im guessing, i was the classic skinny fat
CAN WE PLEASE NOT DIVERT THIS THREAD TO THE 'ONE DAY ARM CURE' TYPE THREAD WE HAVE ALL READ THAT SILLY SHIT YET EVERY DUMBASS REHASHES THINGS.
-
one bodypart-basically either use heavy weight with longer rest but not too long or for a good 1-2 hours
one bodypart-lighter weights but not too light with short rest periods for a good 1-2 hours
you are garanteed results
-
one could try doing leglifts with a dead hang from a pullup bar for one hour in sets of 5-10 reps (resting moderatly between sets) its a killer did that today my lats and forearms and abs really felt it
-
CAN WE PLEASE NOT DIVERT THIS THREAD TO THE 'ONE DAY ARM CURE' TYPE THREAD WE HAVE ALL READ THAT SILLY SHIT YET EVERY DUMBASS REHASHES THINGS.
The thread can go in any and all directions realted to DOMs. Make contributions while sparing us your need to control the agenda here. Maybe you have ADD-discuss any/all issues without the hostility.
-
daddywaddy what do you think of the idea that the bigger you are the more you can handle? isn't it true that the bigger you are or the fitter you are the more it takes to stimulate growth but it would also work in reverse the smaller or less trained you are the less you need?
-
daddywaddy what do you think of the idea that the bigger you are the more you can handle? isn't it true that the bigger you are or the fitter you are the more it takes to stimulate growth but it would also work in reverse the smaller or less trained you are the less you need?
yes i agree
more food level 1 2 3 4 5
more training level 1 2 3 4 5
-
Have you tried varying other areas-more rest more weight for example? I admit i've tried to do this in the past and then again in the last couple of workouts, but waiting 2 minutes between sets diminishes the pump and IMO also increases injury risk. Not sure that the weight lifted is much different.
-
Have you tried varying other areas-more rest more weight for example? I admit i've tried to do this in the past and then again in the last couple of workouts, but waiting 2 minutes between sets diminishes the pump and IMO also increases injury risk. Not sure that the weight lifted is much different.
i dont always keep 'perfect' record of time between sets but yes there are periods i may slack in that 1 to 2 hours.
more rest and more weight i would say those would be hanging leg raises because you are working out with your whole bodyweight but requires more rest between sets
forearm curls with very little weigth 55 pounds with barely any rest between sets
-
more rest and more weight i would say those would be hanging leg raises because you are working out with your whole bodyweight but requires more rest between sets
What i'm saying is, let's talk about the effect/benefit on the muscle using something different like longer rests with heavier weight, or any other variation..
-
What i'm saying is, let's talk about the effect/benefit on the muscle using something different like longer rests with heavier weight, or any other variation..
more weight with more rest would cause the muscle to 'stretch' more isometrically
less weight less rest causes the fluid levels to rise in muscle and 'stretch' in a different way but in some ways similiar to using more weight. you are 'pumping' more fluids in, and your muscles are mainly water. so with a reasonable less weight less rest you are killing 'two' birds with one stone. 'stretch' of the muscle in isometric contraction and 'pumping' the 'food that we eat' IINTO our muscles which lay the 'foundation' 'framing' and 'roofing' ect that are used to build our 'tower of POWER'
-
more weight with more rest would cause the muscle to 'stretch' more isometrically
less weight less rest causes the fluid levels to rise in muscle and 'stretch' in a different way but in some ways similiar to using more weight. you are 'pumping' more fluids in, and your muscles are mainly water. so with a reasonable less weight less rest you are killing 'two' birds with one stone. 'stretch' of the muscle in isometric contraction and 'pumping' the 'food that we eat' IINTO our muscles which lay the 'foundation' 'framing' and 'roofing' ect that are used to build our 'tower of POWER'
No offense but i'm uninterested in your theories as they're utter speculation even if you don't know it.
Much more interesting is to share actual experiences with different protocols.
-
No offense but i'm uninterested in your theories as they're utter speculation even if you don't know it.
Much more interesting is to share actual experiences with different protocols.
you are hard headed, i have tried nearly all 'protocols'
-
I doubt you have tried periodisation!! ;D
Its worth a try but its complicated in terms of bodybuilding but I am on the task!
-
Im finding it really hard to find information on the subject however:
- The main concern of the program is that it will ensure continued growth as we all have this drilled in our heads by now the body is a highly adaptive organism.
- Also, primarly another interesting factor that will considered is that there are different important types of hypertrophy.Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy refers to an increase in energy substances in the muscle cell as glycogen and creatine(GVT training would involve this) Whilst also we have 'real muscle growth' as a thickening of the muscle fiber itself refered to as 'Myofibrillar hypertrophy'
- The hormonal responses will also benefit as the lower reptition with longer rest periods promote increased testosterone whilst higher repetition work with less rest will induce lactic acid consequently resulting in greater growth hormone output. All of which play vital roles in 'building muscle' as we all know.
- One of my worries of a program of such nature is that strength/myofibrillar hypertropy training phases would involve lower volume of repetitive effort therefore perhaps reducing the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy effects which is known to not last as long as 'real muscle growth'. Therefore the timing needs to be spot on, I will continue to find research into the "staying power" of the glycogen/creatine overcompensation. One source has said that after these high volume training phases the extra glycogen will be put to use in the 'real muscle growth process. "Since your body’s recuperation abilities were built up to the maximum by the previous phase and the volume has gone down dramatically, these extra recuperation abilities are used to increase strength and build more muscle mass." How great does that sound!
You guys probably all know these basics, from this we can also take that these "build your arm in a day" are not going to cause long term gains due to the predominant outcome just being extra glycogen stored in the muscles causing bigger measurement which is not bad!
NOTE: On the note of Vince B saying "everybody's an expert in the iron game" this is so true and Im just a chump trying to find some answers and realised that people who follow the same training scheme(like a religious affair ala H.I.T. and HST) are doing things right but only in a few regards when in reality all things need to be considered.
This is some further reading on hypertrophy which some of you may have come across
http://members.optusnet.com.au/theanimal1/hypertrophy_hyperplasia.pdf
-
One other observation I have made is that why does it seem second nature for people to see adding variety( in the aim of creating constant progression) in their workouts only by changing the exercise they perform?
-
Sorry for all these posts but they are different topics.
I have read in Vince's topics that he negates the effectiveness of the deadlift!
Ok, for one you know this! YOU HAVE PREACHED THIS!!
That stimulating a muscle results in growth elsewhere this is because of hormones!
What better exercise to do this than deadlifts an exercise which seemingly uses all your joints. Sure you TORE a muscle but it f'n STUPID to do an underhand grip in the first place thats ASKING to rip then bicep right of the tendon thats why straps are great.
Anyway each to their own I suppose ,but it really is a great exercise and I am sure your views will ALWAYS be slanted as you injured yourself on it, just don't be so hard on those who do them.
-
Thanks for the posts. Ya that's an issue, longer rests should mean less lactic acid. I'm in the process of retrying this approach though i have to admit it's hard to wait longer between sets as i feel it may increase the potential for injury. No basis for that other than the fact the cool down's more pronounced.
I'm in agreement with VC on deads. I'd say it's unwise to say that just because you haven't gotten injured that the idea holds no water. IMO the exercise by it's nature is stressful; if it has to be done better to use higher reps, or do hyperextensions instead.
you are hard headed, i have tried nearly all 'protocols'
You've done a poor job sharing your experiences here. Your posts aren't interesting.
-
peoeple use far too much weight on deadlift.
people should just have 225 on the bar using short to moderate rest periods for a killer back pump
-
You've done a poor job sharing your experiences here. Your posts aren't interesting.
if i want to be interesting ill give details about my weekly/monthly flings with females......
you need to think about something, if you dont see changes from month to month and perhaps week to week then you are just maintaining
-
peoeple use far too much weight on deadlift.
people should just have 225 on the bar using short to moderate rest periods for a killer back pump
We actually agree on something.
-
Nothing to add on the topic, all I wanted to say is great title, on par with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "The Grapes of Wrath."
-
Yes, it's a true classic!
-
People will post on muscle discussion boards to justify what they believe. They seldom are going to abandon any belief at all. If someone believes deadlifts are going to help them in bodybuilding what can anyone say to refute that? It then becomes a waste of time because we are not discussing any issue at all but merely posting our pet beliefs and ideas.
What is the test of the truth of factual statements? If I state that deadlifts are dangerous what is the proof of this statement? Does the fact that one of two people tear biceps count? Perhaps. Can anyone demonstrate that doing heavy deadlifts is a safe practice for everyone? I doubt it. I try to imagine what benefits doing deadlifts could have for a bodybuilder and fail to find anything convincing at all. Others think I am blind. So we both go away changing nothing at all. I post my experiences to warn others to be careful and some come here and say that is nonsense. So much for having good intentions on these sites.
Daddywaddy was onto something re pumping vs stretching. However, those words are rather undefined concepts and relate to physical processes that are probably not understood completely. Putting a muscle in a stretched position is not the same and pumping it and 'stretching' the tissue. His example shows a typical use of terms and that is probably not good enough for scientific type discussions.
For example, try to define the concept 'strength'. It is not as easy as you think. See if you can have an operational definition that can be used in testing and measuring. We all know what strength is but we cannot properly define it. Thus, such poorly defined terms can mean different things and we are at loggerheads because of our conflicting vocabularies.
-
My view of deadlifts: heavy weight will achieve what added benefits, exactly? The development of errectors can be achieved with moderate weight. Specifically within the context of also doing other good overall movements such as squats, benches, military presses, maybe even cleans, what are the added benefits of heavy deads?
If someone can tell me i'd like to hear it but the additional benefits of heavy deads seems marginal while the downsides are pronounced.
-
There is so much that bodybuilders believe about training and muscles just because it was passed on to them via other people. Even writers for magazines perpetuate the beliefs and information.
How many of the following statements about bodybuilding are true?
1. You need protein supplements.
2. Free weights are better than machines.
3. It is easy to overtrain.
4. There are individuals who are hardgainers.
5. If you can't make gains quickly you are a hardgainer.
6. Everyone using steroids gets big muscles.
7. Lots of people have PhD degrees in hypertrophy and bodybuilding.
8. Drugs are needed to get big.
9. All training theories work for someone out there.
10. Some people grow new muscle cells, and this is called hyperplasia.
11. If you stress a muscle it should grow.
12. Some people have more muscle fibers than others.
13. You need to let a muscle recover for it to grow.
14. Training a muscle once a week is good enough to make it grow.
15. Variety will overcome the training bout effect.
16. You need periodic lay-offs to keep growing.
17. Training a muscle daily will not allow it to grow.
18. All bodybuilders need extra vitamins and minerals via pills.
19. It takes at least 5 years to get to your maximum size.
20. You won't tear a muscle if you warmup properly.
21. If you can get your arms to 17 you should know enough to get them to 18 inches.
22. Larry Scott, Arnold S, and Mike Mentzer all did equivalent things to get big.
23. It is easy to comprehend bodybuilding research.
24. Guys who got big know how to train properly.
25. It is not possible to put 2 inches on your arms in one month training naturally.
-
Nice list with some classics that are swallowed whole by much of the populace. There are some great ones there, including my fave the once-weekly training dogma. The ones who propose this always do so in an all-knowing, slightly condescending manner in addressing the unconverted masses.
Here are some more:
-"Their training methods only work because of drugs."
-"Close-grip benches are the best for triceps size, because you can use more weight." This is a favorite. Sometimes dips are substituted for close-grips on this one.
-"Compounds are better than isolations for size."
-"Cables are only for toning." Another great one. This statement is usually followed by: "Cables and machines are for pussies." and/or "Free weights are the only way to get big because of stablizer muscles."
-"Pros know how to train better than anyone else." and the corollary: "He's not big so he doesn't know how to train."
-"Strict form is essential." and the corollary: "Full range ROMs are essential."
-
There is so much that bodybuilders believe about training and muscles just because it was passed on to them via other people. Even writers for magazines perpetuate the beliefs and information.
How many of the following statements about bodybuilding are true?
1. You need protein supplements.
2. Free weights are better than machines.
3. It is easy to overtrain.
4. There are individuals who are hardgainers.
5. If you can't make gains quickly you are a hardgainer.
6. Everyone using steroids gets big muscles.
7. Lots of people have PhD degrees in hypertrophy and bodybuilding.
8. Drugs are needed to get big.
9. All training theories work for someone out there.
10. Some people grow new muscle cells, and this is called hyperplasia.
11. If you stress a muscle it should grow.
12. Some people have more muscle fibers than others.
13. You need to let a muscle recover for it to grow.
14. Training a muscle once a week is good enough to make it grow.
15. Variety will overcome the training bout effect.
16. You need periodic lay-offs to keep growing.
17. Training a muscle daily will not allow it to grow.
18. All bodybuilders need extra vitamins and minerals via pills.
19. It takes at least 5 years to get to your maximum size.
20. You won't tear a muscle if you warmup properly.
21. If you can get your arms to 17 you should know enough to get them to 18 inches.
22. Larry Scott, Arnold S, and Mike Mentzer all did equivalent things to get big.
23. It is easy to comprehend bodybuilding research.
24. Guys who got big know how to train properly.
25. It is not possible to put 2 inches on your arms in one month training naturally.
How many of these things are actually taught in bodybuilding magazines?
YIP
Zack
-
How many of these things are actually taught in bodybuilding magazines?
YIP
Zack
owned.
Just a friendly request is that this thread steers clear of the "im a non-conformist" and "pushing my own thoughts" undertones which seemingly have plagued all intelligent discussion regarding building muscle on getbig.
-
I have read most of the bodybuilding magazines dating from the mid 1940s. The theories that various writers have do not constitute much at all. Sure they mean well but most perpetuate theories and few seldom originate anything at all. Thus, when those people write articles their prejudices, misinformation, and false theories get published. They unwittingly pass on a lot of the rubbish that everyone ends up believing. That is how insidious this is.
Take one concept. Overtraining. What the hell is that? Show me any studies defining that concept or demonstrating what it is. In the absence of any such definition we find all manner of explanations and theories that show nothing at all. It has yet to be established there is any such thing. Yet just about everyone believes there is such a thing. There are so many charlatans in bodybuilding that it is embarrassing. We, as a group, are almost devoid of any intellectual rigour about hypertrophy. It is any wonder, then, that there is so much confusion in bodybuilding?
-
Take one concept. Overtraining. What the hell is that? Show me any studies defining that concept or demonstrating what it is. In the absence of any such definition we find all manner of explanations and theories that show nothing at all. It has yet to be established there is any such thing.
I agree with you that many myths are propogated and spread in the muscle mags. I disagree that overtraining is such a concept. Overtraining is well-documented in the literature and is generally defined as "Untreated overreaching that results in chronic decreases in performance and impaired ability to train. Other problems may result and may require medical attention."
The sources are too numerous to mention here but include:
Costill, D.L., Flynn, M.G., Kirwan, J.P., Houmard, J.A., Mitchell, J.B., Thomas, R. & Park, S.H. (1988). Effect of repeated days of intensified training on muscle glycogen and swimming performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 20, 249-254.
Davis, J.M. & Hertler-Colbert, L. (1997). The athlete's immune system, intense exercise, and overtraining. In: Lamb, D.R. & Murray, R. (Eds.). Optimizing Sport Performance: Perspectives in Exercise Science and Sports Medicine. Vol. 10, (pp.269-311).
Fry, R.W., Morton, A.R. & Keast, D. (1991). Overtraining in athletes: an update. Sports Medicine, 12, 32-65.
Krieder, R.B., Fry, A.C. & O'Toole, M.L. (1998). Overtraining in Sport. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL.
Kuipers, H. (1998). Training and overtraining: an introduction. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 30, 1137-1139.
Kuipers, H. & Keizer, H.A. (1988). Overtraining in elite athletes: review and future directions. Sports Medicine, 6, 79-920.
Morgan, W.P., Brown, D.R., Raglin, J.S., O'Connor, P.J. & Ellickson, K. A. (1987). Psychological monitoring of overtraining and staleness. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 21, 107-113.
O'Connor, P.J. (1997). Overtraining and staleness. In: W.P. Morgan (Ed.). Physical Activity & Mental Health. (pp. 145-160). Taylor & Francis, Washington, D.C.
Raglin, J.S. Overtraining and staleness: Psychometric monitoring of endurance athletes. (1993). In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey & L.K. Tennet (Eds), Handbook of Research in Sport Psychology. (pp. 840-850), Macmillan: New York.
Raglin, J.S., & Wilson, G.S. (In press). Overtraining in athletes: In Emotion in Sports. Y.L.Hanin, (Ed.). Human Kinetics.
Urhausen, A., Gabriel, H.H.W., Weiler, B. & Kindermann, W. (1998). Ergometric and psychological findings during overtraining: a long-term follow-up study in endurance athletes. International Journal of Sports Medicine.19, 114-120.
-
I agree with you that many myths are propogated and spread in the muscle mags. I disagree that overtraining is such a concept. Overtraining is well-documented in the literature and is generally defined as "Untreated overreaching that results in chronic decreases in performance and impaired ability to train. Other problems may result and may require medical attention."
The sources are too numerous to mention here but include:
Costill, D.L., Flynn, M.G., Kirwan, J.P., Houmard, J.A., Mitchell, J.B., Thomas, R. & Park, S.H. (1988). Effect of repeated days of intensified training on muscle glycogen and swimming performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 20, 249-254.
Davis, J.M. & Hertler-Colbert, L. (1997). The athlete's immune system, intense exercise, and overtraining. In: Lamb, D.R. & Murray, R. (Eds.). Optimizing Sport Performance: Perspectives in Exercise Science and Sports Medicine. Vol. 10, (pp.269-311).
Fry, R.W., Morton, A.R. & Keast, D. (1991). Overtraining in athletes: an update. Sports Medicine, 12, 32-65.
Krieder, R.B., Fry, A.C. & O'Toole, M.L. (1998). Overtraining in Sport. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL.
Kuipers, H. (1998). Training and overtraining: an introduction. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 30, 1137-1139.
Kuipers, H. & Keizer, H.A. (1988). Overtraining in elite athletes: review and future directions. Sports Medicine, 6, 79-920.
Morgan, W.P., Brown, D.R., Raglin, J.S., O'Connor, P.J. & Ellickson, K. A. (1987). Psychological monitoring of overtraining and staleness. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 21, 107-113.
O'Connor, P.J. (1997). Overtraining and staleness. In: W.P. Morgan (Ed.). Physical Activity & Mental Health. (pp. 145-160). Taylor & Francis, Washington, D.C.
Raglin, J.S. Overtraining and staleness: Psychometric monitoring of endurance athletes. (1993). In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey & L.K. Tennet (Eds), Handbook of Research in Sport Psychology. (pp. 840-850), Macmillan: New York.
Raglin, J.S., & Wilson, G.S. (In press). Overtraining in athletes: In Emotion in Sports. Y.L.Hanin, (Ed.). Human Kinetics.
Urhausen, A., Gabriel, H.H.W., Weiler, B. & Kindermann, W. (1998). Ergometric and psychological findings during overtraining: a long-term follow-up study in endurance athletes. International Journal of Sports Medicine.19, 114-120.
untreated is a key word you can 'treat' overtraining with FOOD therefore, there really is no such thing as overtraining because we dont have to worry about not eating, food is plentiful
-
does that mean you can train unlimited if you eat unlimited?
-
untreated is a key word you can 'treat' overtraining with FOOD therefore, there really is no such thing as overtraining because we dont have to worry about not eating, food is plentiful
Absurd as well as poorly-worded. Food is very important but not to the extent he's describing.
-
Reply to MidniteRambo. I acknowledge that there is plenty of research re overtraining and sports performance but show me any re hypertrophy training. The researchers are not interested in hypertrophy or at least maximum hypertrophy in humans and that is why we see very little pertinent research that is important to bodybuilding.
Here is the problem presented by animal research and hypertrophy. How did the fowl gain up to 300% in a muscle in one month? Is this phenomenon applicable to humans? If so, then overtraining as we know it does not exist. Perhaps instead of 'training' we should be talking about length of time under tension and whether there are limits for growth in humans.
-
Reply to MidniteRambo. I acknowledge that there is plenty of research re overtraining and sports performance but show me any re hypertrophy training.
Hypertrophy wasn't the topic.
You gave examples of different "statements" that are to be found in musclemagazines.
You mentioned overtraining as one of the things bodybuilding writers perpetruating.
MidniteRambo made a clear statement about overtraining, how it is a wellknown fact, also backed it up with references.
You first claim that there is yet to be a definition of overtraining.
Take one concept. Overtraining. What the hell is that? Show me any studies defining that concept or demonstrating what it is. In the absence of any such definition we find all manner of explanations and theories that show nothing at all. It has yet to be established there is any such thing. Yet just about everyone believes there is such a thing.
But then, after MidniteRambo posted the references:
Reply to MidniteRambo. I acknowledge that there is plenty of research re overtraining and sports performance but show me any re hypertrophy training.
YIP
Zack
-
Theres no point hedgehog, Vince will not actively respond to what anybody says.
-
Theres no point hedgehog, Vince will not actively respond to what anybody says.
I've come to realise that.
Basile blasts bodybuilding magazine writers, yet he gives Christian Thibidoux credit and considers him a "knowledgeable student of hypertrophy".
On the merits of Thibidoux' getting published in an online magazine... ::)
Basile is contradicting himself all the time, and really, no big deal if he would bring any theories to the table for people to try.
But he doesn't.
YIP
Zack
-
I have no obligation to post on this forum. It is not worth my while so I won't be responding to people like Zack and Animal.
-
I have no obligation to post on this forum.
Obviously, you don't. Nobody has.
It is not worth my while so I won't be responding to people like Zack and Animal.
Why not?
YIP
Zack
-
Crazy thread, turned into the daddy waddy-pumster show.Ha ha ha. ;D I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.
While 100s of sets will prob set you back, you do need to increase something to achieve a greater degree of muscle break down,and then allow time to repair,(and this will most likely result in soreness).Side note. Ever notice how how your body parts that pump easily and get doms seem to grow better. something to think about ;D
-
work out at a high intensity for an hour. if your sore fine if your not fine.if you worked out balls to the wall for one hour you did your job.
-
Great thread.
45 secs rest has been my mantra for ages, 6-12 range, and I believe it still works. I lift to failure, still get sore, and still see progress - but threads like this one tempt me to mix it up a bit more.
The Animals thoughts in #81 regarding sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar growth are intriguing. He didn't mention muscle fiber types (I think?) - type 1, 2a, 2b. Anyone have any theories about the 'ol tried and true pyramiding being effective in fatiguing the various fibers and promoting both sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy? I'm assuming there's a relationship between the type of fiber recruited and the nature of the growth... is there? Or is pyramiding in the 12-10-8 (and 6) range not the magic beans I've been thinking it is?
Mitchboy, I've got to disagree. My chest gets sore (really sore when I blast it) but I consider it a lagging part. I interpret DOMS as my body trying to adapt, but some parts seems more adept at adaptation than others.
Pumpster, I dig your views and general mod style, but ease up on the DW if you can find it in your heart. You slammed the door pretty hard on this one. He's definitely an idiot at times, but he really seemed to be trying to contribute in this thread. Eloquence fails us all at times... fails DW most times... but treating him like a rambunctious child at a dinner party won't get him to post his routine and discuss the nitty gritty of the DW routine, for what it's worth. Not a flame, just one white man's opinion.
-
great thread, destroys a lot of myth thanks to vince basile
-
Theres no point hedgehog, Vince will not actively respond to what anybody says.
I have to say this is generally true and disappointing; if he's seriously interested in genuine discourse as claimed, on this or any other of the many BB sites he's been on over the years, interaction that demonstrates an open mind's key. Without which the back-and-forth and dialogue's less than it could be.