Author Topic: What if you had to lift every day?  (Read 10523 times)

Lion666

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
  • You gotta bring it to get it!
What if you had to lift every day?
« on: January 14, 2006, 09:05:29 PM »
Was lookin at the "point of gh" thread.  Less is more to sum it up.  2 hours for natty, 3 for juice.  Basically HIT principle.  The two schools of thought, HIT and volume training.  One end of the spectrum to the other. 

Have a friend that worked in a junkyard, big dude all way round and pretty cut too.  Retard strength, lifts engines.  Worked in the business his whole life, everyday performing heavy lifts all day everyday.  His job commands it, no sets no reps no post workout shakes.  Someone else whose job is in construction, sure everyone knows someone like this.  Big, burly and strong.  Lifts weight every day, no specific movements or form, no sets no reps, no shakes, maybe three to four meals a day, maybe even drinks beer.  Everyone knows the stereotype. 

The point is they don't have training plans, sets, reps, form or nutrition.  Its the livelyhood of their occupation, they have to.  Yet they have some pretty good builds ie., muscular and strong.  They have to lift heavy all day every day.  They don't go to work on monday lift heavy objects all day then go in tuesday and tell the boss its their "off day" or they are sore so they gotta work a different bodypart (example:bench mon, wed, fri.  How about bench 5 days or 6 days straight?).  No if they are sore, what do they do?  Grit it and lift it.  Gotta pay the bills. 

In the thread of "gh" forgot who posted but they said working out 7 days was worse than 3 because at 7 you can actually lose muscle.  Not good for bbin'.  The point is what about laborers?  I personally like to lift everyday, my goals are bbin' ie. gaining big cut muscles, along with getting stronger even though its not as important to me as getting bigger.   Even if working out less meant getting bigger quicker and reaching goals faster, I don't think I would.  Matter a fact I don't now.  I like to and am addicted to lifting everyday no matter what.  Love to train. 

Who gives a $hit what some university studies say or some book has printed in it.  Practical application.  That $hit looks good, all those studies and tests and all the best plans sound good in the locker room but things change at game time.  For every study that proves something there is another to disprove it.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.  Patton said that you can have the best laid out battle plan in the war room but once you hit the ground its a different story. 

Any thoughts?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2006, 09:22:49 PM »
IMO your friend could be an accountant and would probably still look good due to genetics.

Intensive labor does help, but the body only adapts to what it HAS to do.

And working hard labor for 40 years definitely can have negative effects on other aspects of your life.

BigAlski

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Getbig!
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2006, 09:40:16 PM »
Well maybe a few insights would put people into perspective as to what is happening to health in America. 

First of all, everyone used to do streneous labor.  I grew up on a farm and I know.  They worked, basically, as hard as they could and utilized every muscle they could in every motion they performed.  You never hear about people having a history of bad back conditions until the "unionization" of America.  We all know that the back is the largest and most complex muscle group and using it would have been the KEY to every labor day in America's history, not the part to avoid as it is today.  America also used to have a lot of internal and external ideals concerning hard work.  If you heard an older relative refer to someone he once knew as "stout" or "barrel chested" they probably were.  I cannot get over a picture I saw once, of a midshipman on a schooner, approximately 1890.  I could have sworn this man looked like he was ready for a bodybuilding stage but he was just working the ropes.  Today America won't do a half assed lick of work unless you paid them more than they're worth and would have a mouth like a bucket of shit to match.

Secondly, Americans eat WAY too much these days.  If you look at traditional American diet of 3 heavy meals a day that involves 12-14 hours of labor to burn it up.  Butcher's cuts and other traditional measurements are for a full grown man.  Treats, as it were (pie, cake, etc) were something you had on the holidays or maybe on the weekend but today people eat this stuff all the time.  They also cooked what they ate so they wouldn't prepare something they wouldn't want some one to eat.

Thirdly, there weren't so many medicines, surgeries, etc. that there are now.  People were just tougher, thats the way it was.  One might take a sick day if they were puking their guts out with the runs and actually could not physically work but they never would skip work if they could.  Kids were also a lot tougher, along with the old folks.

So yes in a traditional setting you could stay really strong and built working but not really in modern America.  Don't be ashamed of the fact you lift wieghts to stay fit, if you would have lived in Ohio in the 1820's you may have been a different person.

alexxx

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10129
  • Don't hate..
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2006, 09:46:28 PM »
I couldn't agree with you guys more. I train 6 times a week with the 1 set to failor per exercise and if I didn't train as much I would feel like shit. Some times I go to the gym a couple of times a day I made my own version of the mentzer training program hehehe ;D
just push some weight!

GMCtrk

  • Guest
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2006, 09:56:09 PM »
I have worked with people who do manual labor, they were all mid40s or older and have been doing manual labor their whole life. Definitely bigger than the average person, but not bodybuilder big. And you know what every single one of them told me, stay in school. you don't ever want to do this. But they know nothing else.

Oliver Klaushof

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3525
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2006, 09:58:03 PM »
IMO your friend could be an accountant and would probably still look good due to genetics.

Intensive labor does help, but the body only adapts to what it HAS to do.

And working hard labor for 40 years definitely can have negative effects on other aspects of your life.

yup.
"Shut the F up and train"

paul84

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • Nuke 'em, Rico!
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2006, 10:08:52 PM »
I have worked with people who do manual labor, they were all mid40s or older and have been doing manual labor their whole life. Definitely bigger than the average person, but not bodybuilder big. And you know what every single one of them told me, stay in school. you don't ever want to do this. But they know nothing else.

Whenever someone asks me about going into medicine, I tell them I should've been a firefighter.  Grass is greener I suppose.  You get a nice job in the end but getting there blows and eats up your life till you're 30. 

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2006, 10:11:02 PM »
I was the guy who mentioned the 3 hours hard training a week guideline on the GH thread... glad to see it got someone thinking.

However I'm a little concerned, Lion666, by your attitude of ignoring what science and evidence have to say on the matter. I guess it's the "failure of success" principle often referred to by people like Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden; if you asked a (talking) gorilla how he got so big and strong he'd probably tell you that he didn't know, but if you praised and rewarded the gorilla for being so big and strong he'd soon be expounding the bamboo diet and how his dedication to this diet allowed him to reach such inordinate levels of size and strength.
It's just something that's built in to people, they need to justify random success because accepting the randomness demeans them, demotes them from being excellent... to merely being lucky.

If you're addicted to lifting weights; all the more power to you.

Is training every day the best (fastest) way to increase muscle mass? No. Have people built huge amounts of muscle mass training very high volume every, or nearly every day? Yes. Would they have built as much or more muscle, faster using HIT training... undoubtedly yes.

Studying success does not always lead to success.

Would you ask a lottery winner what his "secret" was?
Would you ask a giant the "secret" to how he grew so tall?
Would you ask stock broker how he outperformed the market every year for the last five years?
Well maybe...

I would have assumed something like the stock market would filter out those who were doing something wrong. Most people would assume some sort of skill or technical ability was involved... but time and again computer models in which programs acting as traders simply made random buys mimic the real market almost perfectly. Seems the number of succesful traders and brokers is exactly what you would expect from the law of averages... if millions of people flip coins endlessly, someone's bound to flip a hundred heads in a row. No doubt a bestselling book detailing his coin flipping technique would quickly follow.

If so much of our civilization is based on such faulty reasoning maybe I shouldn't be surprised that bodybuilders are also prone to it.

The Luke 

BroadStreetBruiser

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8576
  • TKU
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2006, 10:14:21 PM »
i didn't read this so I'm thinking it's stupid
 

SS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9610
  • The new and improved SS.
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2006, 10:35:28 PM »
i didn't read this so I'm thinking it's stupid
 
that's what i said!...but some fag deleted my post >:(

Lion666

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
  • You gotta bring it to get it!
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2006, 01:04:59 AM »
Luke, I don't take what you said lightly.  There is no question about the worth of case studies and research, knowledge is power.  I just like to go from one extreme to the pther cause in the end they are both right.  Just want to show there is a different direction from the status quo, and want to see what other people have to say.  Nothing is set in stone.  All those training principles, studies, theories etc. they all work and dont work.   ;)  There are certain things popular knowledge says for example.  Don't train the same bodypart every day or perform the same lift.  How about benching everyday for a month?  Or doing barbell curls everyday for a month?  Now not saying negatives everyday to complete failure or forced reps, recipe for injury, that factored in.  But what if it was your job? Barbell curls 5 days a week 15 sets a day for a month, moderate rest in between sets, not saying go crazy like your looking for injury, again no forced reps.

I guess I'm making a challenge/experiment just for the f#ck of it.  I'm gonna give it a shot.  Anyone want to add to the parameters?  Lets take something non-shoulder related for injuries sake.  That doesn't mean I wont perform bench everyday but for now lets base the experiment on barbell curls.  Anyone have ideas?  5 days a week?  7?  # of sets?  !5?  # of reps per set? 10-15?  Come on guys, give your input and I'll start on Monday.  I'll take measurements of my arms and log all my workouts.  I'm still gonna keep my same workout routine, I'll just add that in at a seperate part of the day, before or after my regular workout.  Lets see what happens.   :)

JOHN MATRIX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13281
  • the Media is the Problem
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2006, 01:13:56 AM »
the funny thing is, most construction workers are scrawny beer guzzling mexicans. some are big though no doubt, but most are not, like someone else said they were going to be that way or not, genetics. most mechanics are not what id call big but they tend to have excellent arm and hand strength. wow i forgot what point i was going to make.

bigdumbbell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17468
  • Bon Voyage !
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2006, 05:51:14 AM »
the funny thing is, most construction workers are scrawny beer guzzling mexicans. some are big though no doubt, but most are not, like someone else said they were going to be that way or not, genetics. most mechanics are not what id call big but they tend to have excellent arm and hand strength. wow i forgot what point i was going to make.

you underestimate the strength of the labor movement :)

CT

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Getbig!
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2006, 07:08:00 AM »
The_Luke, you talked about the dose-response relationship in regard to strength training. This is an interesting topic, and one that has often been discussed by HIT advocates, especially guys from the IART of Bryan Johnson. The problem is that they often use pharmacological data or simple analogies to try and describe the dose-response relationship in relation to strength-training effects. They do not resort to actual datas on that precise subject. Sometimes they will use scientific studies that have a remote link to the subject, but they never quote actual dose-relationship datas.

Such data actually exists. The work of Peterson, Alvar and Rhea (2003, 2004) did study the actual dose-relationship to strength-training. To do so they did a meta-analysis of a large body of scientific studies involving strength training (37 studies in one research and 140 studies in the other) and established a D-R relationship to volume, frequency and intensity. Without posting the entire paper (the full references are provided at the end of this post) the conclusions are that:

1) In regard to training intensity (% of 1RM) the greatest gains were seen when training between 75 and 85%

2) In regard to training volume (defined as sets per muscle group per session) the greatest effect was seen at either 8 or 14 sets per muscle group. The lowest results were seen when 1 to 3 sets per muscle groups were performed. Training too much wasn't much better as the gains drop after 14 sets/muscle group, reaching a low point at 16 sets (but still higher than with 1-3 sets).

3) In regard to training frequency (defined as the number of times per week a bodypart is trained) there was no difference between 1 and 3 weekly sessions per muscle group (although in the earlier study, they reported slightly better gains in beginners when peforming 3 weekly sessions per muscle group).

I have attached the figures from the later study.

* Important note: the figures are taken from the second research, which focused on studies with athletes and trained subjects, not beginners. So this is the most applicable of the two meta-analysis. This second research involved an analysis of 37 studies which came up to 331 trained subjects.

A final paper by the same group (2005) gave the following recommendations:

"There has been a proliferation in recent scholarly discussion regarding the scientific validity of single vs. multiple sets of resistance training (dose) to optimize muscular strength development (response). Recent meta-analytical research indicates that there exist distinct muscular adaptations, and dose-response relationships, that correspond to certain populations. It seems that training status influences the requisite doses as well as the potential magnitude of response. Specifically, for individuals seeking to experience muscular strength development beyond that of general health, an increase in resistance-training dosage must accompany increases in training experience. The purpose of this document is to analyze and apply the findings of 2 meta-analytical investigations that identified dose-response relationships for 3 populations: previously untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete; and thereby reveal distinct, quantified, dose-response trends for each population segment. Two meta-analytical investigations, consisting of 177 studies and 1,803 effect sizes (ES) were examined to extract the dose-response continuums for intensity, frequency, volume of training, and the resultant strength increases, specific to each population. ES data demonstrate unique dose-response relationships per population. For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. These meta-analyses demonstrate that the effort-to-benefit ratio is different for untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete populations; thus, emphasizing the necessity of appropriate exercise prescription to optimize training effect. Exercise professionals may apply these dose-response trends to prescribe appropriate, goal-oriented training programs."

References:

A Meta-analysis to Determine the Dose Response for Strength Development.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 35(3):456-464, March 2003.
RHEA, MATTHEW R. 1; ALVAR, BRENT A. 1; BURKETT, LEE N. 1; BALL, STEPHEN D. 2

Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship.
MD Peterson, MR Rhea, BA Alvar - J Strength Cond Res, 2004

Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription.
Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Nov;19(4):950-8.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2006, 03:18:32 PM »
Great post CT,

This is the kind of discussion that actually gives us something to work with. Much better than fools telling everyone what they "feel" is the best regieme.

However, their is a very serious problem with these kinds of study: motivation!

It is simply impossible to train for 14 sets at 85% of your 1 rep max. Just physiologically impossible. Think about it... imagine a bodybuilder such as myself who can, say, squat 475 for 1 rep. But instead I do 404 lbs (85%) for 14 straight sets. How intensely am I training?? How many reps should I be doing? If I do manage to finish my fourteenth set of squats that means I had to hold back on the first sets, three all-out sets of squats within 20 minutes would probably hospitalise most of the population... fourteen sets would kill them.

This is the crux of the problem, the recommendations of the study are going to be based on the motivation level of the trainees. Are they training till they "feel" they can't complete another rep? Or does their life literally depend on getting another rep... and another...

You simply can't do a set of squats to failure in the 6+ reps range, lots of bodybuilders think they do reach failure... but the truth of the order of effort is:
1st -nausea
2nd -tunnel vision
3rd -defecation or loss of consciousness
4th -heart failure
then finally...
5th -muscualar failure

If you don't believe the above then simply attach a heavy duty electrostimulator to a bodybuilders quads while he is doing leg-extensions. The muscle can still be stimulated to contract over the rep range long after the bodybuilder has passed out from the pain/stress.

Science! It's fun for all the family!!

The Luke



The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2006, 06:33:40 PM »
Can't believe this thread just died so quickly....

There must be a couple of hundred guys on this board who (in their youthful enthusiasm) trained every day for some period of time and had it end badly: plateau; regression; sickness; exhaustion etc.

Won't anyone else set this guy straight before he makes the same mistake?

The Luke

CT

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Getbig!
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2006, 07:02:30 PM »


It is simply impossible to train for 14 sets at 85% of your 1 rep max. Just physiologically impossible. Think about it... imagine a bodybuilder such as myself who can, say, squat 475 for 1 rep. But instead I do 404 lbs (85%) for 14 straight sets. How intensely am I training?? How many reps should I be doing? If I do manage to finish my fourteenth set of squats that means I had to hold back on the first sets, three all-out sets of squats within 20 minutes would probably hospitalise most of the population... fourteen sets would kill them.

Well, they recommend 14 total sets per muscle group ... actually they recommend 8 total sets per muscle groups. It doesn't have to be on one exercise. For example it could be:

Back squat 3 sets of 4-6 reps
Leg press 3 sets of 6-8 reps
Leg extension 2 sets of 6-8 reps

For a total of 9 sets.

Now, I will agree that if all of those sets are performed to the point of utmost training failure it will be somekind of challenge. However it can be done provided sufficient rest and adequate physical conditioning.

Still, even sets not conducted to absolute muscle failure can lead to strength and size increases because weight lifting can lead to strength/size gains via several factors:

1. Mechanical and metabolic factors, of which tissue micro-trauma is the main thing. ATP debt is also one of these factor. Both of these can be maximized by training to failure. However performing more sets of near-failure training can build-up to the same amount of muscle micro-trauma and ATP-depth.

2. Hormonal responses to training: hGH and testosterone levels can be modified by training. For example, lactic acid build-up has been linked to hGH release whileheavy lifting has been show to lead to a higher level of testosterone levels. Furthermore, a training program that depletes muscle glycogen has been shown to increase muscle-cell insulin sensitivity, which can increase the anabolic response to post-training feeding. Training to failiure isn't necessary to produce significant hormonal responses, and studies have found that a higher training volume (within reason) leads to a greater hormonal output (to be fair it also increases cortisol output).

3. CNS activation: improving CNS efficiency can facilitate the innervation of fast-twitch motor units by making them more excitable over time. As a result they are more easily recruited and stimulated by training. Since these fibers have a greater growth potential, being able to recruit them more easily will potentiate muscle growth in the long run. High force training methods (heavy lifting or explosive lifting, since force = mass x acceleration) have the greatest impact on the CNS. Training to failure isn't necessary to improve CNS efficiency.

 So as you can see, once doesn't have to perform all sets to failure. A set that ends close to failure, but with "1 rep in the tank" will still contribute to strength and size gains despite not going to failure.

If you don't believe the above then simply attach a heavy duty electrostimulator to a bodybuilders quads while he is doing leg-extensions. The muscle can still be stimulated to contract over the rep range long after the bodybuilder has passed out from the pain/stress.

Science! It's fun for all the family!!

The Luke


Actually I do work with EMS with some of my athletes, and while its true that muscles can continue to contract even when voluntary contraction is not possible anymore, this is rarely due to a lack of motivation.

Fatigue from anaerobic work can comes from several sources (lack of motivation being one of them):

1. Acidification of the muscular milieu. When the muscle becomes more acid (due to lactate accumulation), motor-unit activation becomes harder, this is due to a decrease in the excitability of the motor neurons. Since the motor-units/muscle fibers are harder to recruit (so less fibers can come into play), those that can be recruited have to perform more work, get exhausted faster and as a result continuing the set becomes impossible. EMS can then enable the muscle to continue "working" because its impulse is stronger than the CNS nerve impulse and can thus recruit the motor-units that the CNS itself couldn't (because the EMS impulse is strong enough to compensate the decrease in MU excitability).

2. Depletion of the powerful energy substrates. We're talking about anaerobic energy systems, specifically the ATP-CP (phosphagen) and anaerobic glycolysis systems. Both of these can provide ATP (energy) at a very fast rate, but not for long. High intensity muscle work requires such a fast energy production, when these short-term energy stores are unable to produce enough ATP it becomes impossible to continue to produce the same type of muscular effort at the desired level of intensity.

3. The failure to continue a set can also come from excessive micro-trauma (what HIT proponents call "inroads"). In that case the muscle fibers are so severely injured that they simply cannot continue to do the work. This happens only in very rare cases. For example, Brian Johnson (founder of IART and one of the most science-oriented HIT proponent) tested a few subjects on several training protocols (10-10 superslow, 5-5 superslow, 4-2 nautilus protocol) all to muscle failure. He tested the subject's max strength before and after the exercise bout and in several cases (more than 50% of the time) the subjects were actually able to produce MORE force after their work to absolute failure. If failure was due to excessive inroads or micro-trauma, this would have been impossible since tissue restoration takes anywhere between 24 to 72 hours to occur. 

BTW, this post is in no way a critique of your training as it seems to be working for you. However understand that many guys suddenly switch to HIT training and have great gains not necessarily because of the superiority of this method but rather:

a) because of what is called "delayed adaptation"... if someone has been training using a very high volume system and suddenly switch to a very low-volume approach, the initial gains on the new program are actually due to a tapering effect: the body finally has time to recover from the *PRECEDING* training stress. The body was bombarded for a while and was never given the chance to recover and grow, and all of a sudden there is a drastic reduction in training stress and now it has time to grow. That initial growth phase is actually the body catching up to what was imposed before changing methods. What then happens is that after 6-8 weeks on the low-volume approach, gains start to stagnate.

Note that a planned version of this approach is often used in sports. Prior to an important competition, coaches will put their athletes through a stress cycle of 1-2 weeks where volume and intensity are both drastically increased to the point that at the end of the cycle, the athletes are borderline overtrained. Then they follow the stress cycle by an unloading or tapering period of the same duration: volume and frequency are both drastically reduced while intensity is maintained. This allows athletes to surcompensate and peak to a much higher level. This is the most often used peaking strategy in swimming events.

b) because someone has stopped training and lost muscle. When he resumes training (using a HIT system or else) the muscle can be regained at a very fast pace (thanks to the plasticity of muscular adaptations). This can give the illusion of superhuman rates of progress.

phyxsius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6264
  • Mini Getbigger
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2006, 07:37:13 PM »
only fools to lift everyday
I am a mini beast

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2006, 07:58:01 PM »
Great post CT,

Very, very informative. I've actually been doing HIT for several years now (12) and pretty much everything you said about "delayed adaption" is true. I've seen plenty of guys run themselves into the ground with volume only to switch to some useless form of training that suddenly produces results... ie: "I went on holiday for two weeks and gained 10 lbs" and they think it must be the location that they visited because their previous annual holiday didn't produce similar results, or the stretching they started doing must have something to do with it, or they quit lifting to do cardio and inexplicably gain the ten pounds they'd reconciled themselves to doing without... etc. etc.

I'm convinced ATP depletion can cause muscle growth and I reckon training HIT exclusively denies you this stamina-induced muscle growth. However, by training solely for improved strength levels HIT advocates can count on a relatively stable growth rate. I've yet to meet a devoted, practicing HIT/Heavy-Duty athlete who has plateaued for an extended period of time (months), yet I know many volume trainers who haven't progressed at all in years...

One thing I'll say against extreme/advanced HIT (once a week) is the staggering level of effort and motivation required. It is effective, but the mental stress of trying to do bench, dips, rows, pullups, squats and deadlifts all in one workout is pretty crushing. I've passed out several times in the gym and get weak and nauseted on a regular basis attempting squats and deadlifts back to back.

The Luke

bradistani

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 70692
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2012, 09:36:52 PM »
my first ever job involved me loading vans with boxes of fruit and bags of spuds at a fruit and veg wholesalers. by the time i left there, i had arms like fucking popeye  8)

i'm still doing heavy fucking lifting at work  :'( and i've still got forearms like popeye  8)

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61617
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2012, 09:40:05 PM »
my first ever job involved me loading vans with boxes of fruit and bags of spuds at a fruit and veg wholesalers. by the time i left there, i had arms like fucking popeye  8)

i'm still doing heavy fucking lifting at work  :'( and i've still got forearms like popeye  8)

2006? Really?

bradistani

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 70692
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2012, 09:43:40 PM »

hrspwr

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2012, 07:10:25 AM »
In my plumbing apprenticeship I had to carry buckets of gravel every day, dig tunnels under footings and do constant shovel work. This shit lasted for about 2 years. Your body adapts to it and you are not under constant load as you are during weight training.
 I can do shovel work all day long, chain saw work, firewood cutting and stuff like that everyday and it won`t hurt me. If I tried to do deadlifts - intense focused maximum lifts, everyday I would burn up in no time flat.
time under tension

PJim

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3951
  • Strike another match, go start anew
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2012, 07:13:51 AM »
You are simply trying to stimulate growth with the least amount of work.

deceiver

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2666
  • onetimehard appreciation team
Re: What if you had to lift every day?
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2012, 07:37:22 AM »
You are simply trying to stimulate growth with the least amount of work.

What if I just enjoy lifting? Most of guys here are lazy douches, who don't like lifting - they like being buff and fucking girls. Then they wear tight shirts so they can "show off". Pathetic.

Wanna know the difference between back then and now?



That's the difference. Tanning bed, gay looking hair and tight shirt vs normal looking guy with a lot of muscle on his frame.