Experiences with a minimalist approach to training

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
sb413197		#41	[-]
Posts: 625 (11/04/09 14:48:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	So then, what is your theory on why most bodybuilders use large numbers of multi-joint moves, when there are so many advantages to doing a routine consisting entirely of single joint moves? Is it just a really stubborn tradition that for some reason has persisted despite the availability of single-joint moves? Or do you think that, through experimentation, most bodybuilders found that by using both compound and isolation exercises gleaned better results than just using isolation (or just compound) exercises? Certainly the anecdotal reports of the great value of compound exercises abound in bodybuilding. I would encourage strongly considering the latter possiblity. I think that in weight training (particularly for a person with some scientific understanding of the human body) there is a tendancy to want to be an engineer (inventing and designing new systems) as opposed to a biologist (observing and figuring out the way things work). I think that being 75% biologist - and humbly keeping in mind that through trial and error performance athletes have probably stumbled across some very effective ways of doing things - is pretty reasonable. At the same time, there's nothing wrong with applying knowledge of anatomy and physiology to make that anecdotal experience that much more applicable to your situation - but to supplant large amounts of anecdotal experience with mere theory is a risky proposition. Of course, actual evidence-based decision making is optimal, but as we've discussed before, well-designed studies reaching valid and applicable conclusions are rare in this sort of thing. If only pharmaceutical companies had a financial interest in performance research - I would love to see some nice "n=250,000" studies on this! Steve Brose
BLOBERT		#42	[-]
Posts: 1019 (11/04/09 18:15:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I get the hammer grip machine setup, it makes sense. I have small hands too, trust me. I tried to get a video of me closing a 3.5 today, missed by less than 1/16. Maybe some other time. Most big guys have focused on compounds. Especially drug free ones. I did preexaust crap, only thing that worked good for me was the tricep extension/dip one. Fly/bench and leg extension/squat sucked for me. Fred, being older AND on a diet you'd be lucky to gain with anything.If you want an increased volume experiment to work, you need to eat. I would also say basic exercise for the most part. That is the way I have done best. I am not an anti-isolation guy-far from it- but usually my gains involve increases in the big lifts. Hahahaha, like Steve insinuates, exercise studies are a joke. N=10-20 is next to useless. Any of the Kramer+Fleck vs. Carpenelli (is that right) or whatever arguments are a joke, the sample sizes are too small to conclusively mean anything. BTW, Steve is a good resource here- A medical doctor who lifts weights for real and understands the science. I've got a masters in physiology, enough to get the basics in muscle function. Its funny, the more actual science you know about lifting weights the more you understand the "science" is relatively useless. "Evidence based" is a great medical buzzword. For strength training, we have nothing close to "evidence based practice". When you get a strength training study with particpants numbering 4+ digits, then we can say something meaningful. I would say all that "science" has determined is that lifting weights makes you stronger. "I do not have such word as diet. I eat all." <br> -Victor Naleikin
BLOBERT		#43	[-]
Posts: 1019 (11/04/09 18:22:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hell, on top of that, you have to realize that medicine is as much as an "art" as strength training is. No matter what some study says, some treatments do not work for all people. If one medication does not work for a person, the doctor just doesn't give up. Strength training will have similar scenarios. Nevermind acheiving acceptable vs. optimal results, which is never really thoroughly studied in medicine. Really, it suprises me that educated people like McGuff write the *+%% they do. "I do not have such word as diet. I eat all." <br> -Victor Naleikin
Lincoln		#44	[-]
Posts: 2027 (11/04/09 19:17:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	"... exercise studies are a joke. N=10-20 is next to useless." On top of that, most studies are done on college-age beginners and last eight weeks or less. There is rarely any follow up, checking back months or years later to see if the results stuck. That makes them doubly worthless for anyone who is older than 22 and has been training longer than a few weeks. Really if you think about it, the entire literature of exercise science is perfectly geared for the "wanna look good at my wedding" crowd. It's focused on young, untrained clients that you'll work hard for eight weeks and then you'll never see them again. Nor will any other gym. And what has exercise science learned about this very specific market? That untrained college-age kids make good improvements for the first few weeks on even the worst exercise programs. Every trainer, no matter how mediocre, can look like a genius with that crowd. On that point the exercise science literature is crystal clear. "...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." Teddy Roosevelt
Serious Strength		#45	[-]
Posts: 4364 (11/05/09 04:37:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	sb413197 wrote: So then, what is your theory on why most bodybuilders use large numbers of multi-joint moves, when there are so many advantages to doing a routine consisting entirely of single joint moves? Is it just a really stubborn tradition that for some reason has persisted despite the availability of single-joint moves? **Myth and lore. Not wanting to look like a pansy-dweeb. Crappy machines that have crummy cams and that don't have enough weight. A pro heavyweight body builder couldn't train at my gym save for a few machines due to lack of weight. Or do you think that, through experimentation, most bodybuilders found that by using both compound and isolation exercises gleaned better results than just using isolation (or just compound) exercises? Certainly the anecdotal reports of the great value of compound exercises abound in bodybuilding. Maybe. There a 'feel to the steel' that is also intoxicating. I like it too. There are certain hand tools I use in carpentry that I am used to. There are indeed better tools for the job. Some are too expensive. Some require that I relearn how to do something. Some feel weird but are better for the job. Still I use the inferior tool. At my level however, who cares. Making a birdhouse is not a big deal and who cares if the dovetail joint is a bit loose. But body builders need to care that they are polished and as perfect as they can be if they want to win that is. I would encourage strongly considering the latter possiblity. I think that in weight training (particularly for a person with some scientific understanding of the human body) there is a tendancy to want to be an engineer (inventing and designing new systems) as opposed to a biologist (observing and figuring out the way things work). I think that being 75% biologist - and humbly keeping in mind that through trial and error performance athletes have probably stumbled across some very effective ways of doing things - is pretty reasonable. At the same time, there's nothing wrong with applying knowledge of anatomy and physiology to make that anecdotal experience that much more applicable to your situation - but to supplant large amounts of anecdotal experience with mere theory is a risky proposition. *I am thinking biology Steve. Bear in mind that I never ever said or suggested that the barbells and dumbbells don't work. In fact, I said the opposite. As a physician you should know that myofibrils, actin/myosin, etc. don't know from a barbell or a MedX machine. They are either stimulated to grow and allowed to grow or they are not. Do you really think that if a body builder quit squatting and instead did leg presses his quads would shrink and wither away? Of course not. And a bench press barely addresses the main function of the pecs which is humeral adduction. Of course, actual evidence-based decision making is optimal, but as we've discussed before, well-designed studies reaching valid and applicable conclusions are rare in this sort of thing. If only pharmaceutical companies had a financial interest in performance research - I would love to see some nice "n=250,000" studies on this! **Amen to that doc!!
Serious Strength		#46	[-]
Posts: 4364 (11/05/09 05:43:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	BLOBERT wrote: I get the hammer grip machine setup, it makes sense. I have small hands too, trust me. I tried to get a video of me closing a 3.5 today, missed by less than 1/16. Maybe some other time. *Goddamm Bob. Most big guys have focused on compounds. Especially drug free ones. I did preexaust crap, only thing that worked good for me was the tricep extension/dip one. Fly/bench and leg extension/squat sucked for me. *leg ext to squat is not a preexhaust BTW neither is triceps to dips. Fly to bench is but what do you mean that is didn't work? Work for what? Fred, being older AND on a diet you'd be lucky to gain with anything.If you want an increased volume experiment to work, you need to eat. I would also say basic exercise for the most part. That is the way I have done best. I am not an anti-isolation guy-far from it- but usually my gains involve increases in the big lifts. But I am gaining Bob. That's the cool thing. But at the same rate I was before. You gain in the big lifts because you don't put any real focus on 'isolation' exercises more than likely. Hahahaha, like Steve insinuates, exercise studies are a joke. N=10-20 is next to useless. Any of the Kramer+Fleck vs. Carpenelli (is that right) or whatever arguments are a joke, the sample sizes are too small to conclusively mean anything. *Bob - some are and some are not. But I agree that research in the field of strength training leaves a lot to be desired. BTW, Steve is a good resource here- A medical doctor who lifts weights for real and understands the science. I've got a masters in physiology, enough to get the basics in muscle function. Its funny, the more actual science you know about lifting weights the more you understand the "science" is relatively useless. *I totally disagree that science is useless. You have to know HOW to interpret and read between the lines - or fibers - as it were. "Evidence based" is a great medical buzzword. For strength training, we have nothing close to "evidence based practice". When you get a strength training study with particpants numbering 4+ digits, then we can say something meaningful. I would say all that "science" has determined is that lifting weights makes you stronger. *There is some good research coming from a doctor named Alexandra Saenger in Switzerland. She is using slow training and getting very good results. Here is the conclusion of one of her studies: Results:** Light microscopical results show that women having a smaller baseline ratio of muscle tissue exhibit a significantly better response to both training interventions. Connective and adipose tissue as well as blood vessels did not differ significantly. With respect to training mode the SuperSlow method positively affects muscle mass at the expense of connective and adipose tissue to a greater extent than the hypertrophy method (Table I). On intracellular level the analysis of the various cell components demonstrates the following (Table II and III): The myofibrillar content of type I muscle fibres declines with both modes of resistance training (thereby to a greater extent with the SuperSlow regime) whereas it levels off in type IID fibres (with even a light increase with the SuperSlow mode). Both fibre types significantly increase their mitochondrial content and with it their aerobic capacity. In type I fibres this is mainly due to both a highly significant increase of the intermyofibrillar mitochondria and the hypertrophy mode of resistance training. In type IID fibres both subpopulations of mitochondria contribute to the overall increase of the mitochondrial amount. Furthermore, this training effect on mitochondria may point to a fibre shift towards type IIA. The energy source in the form of lipid droplets significantly decreases in type I fibres (mainly due to the hypertrophy mode of training), indicating the utilisation of another energy source than lipid such as glycogen to meet the aerobic synthesis of ATP. With both training regimes as a whole the lipid content in type IID muscle fibres is unaffected. However, with the SuperSlow mode there is a slight increase of this energy source indicating its further usage for energy production and positive influence on the lipid metabolism. Once again, this too may be seen as an indication of fibre transformation. With respect to glycogen as alternative fuel and bearing in mind the issue of quantitative analyses with the presented method, an increase mainly with the hypertrophy regime may be observed. Together with the former the hypertrophy regime seems to bank mainly on glycogen as an energy source. Finally, due to the SuperSlow regime the sarcotubular system increases in type I and decreases in type IID fibres, indicating a fibre shift toward IIA. In conclusion the SuperSlow mode appears to be more effective than the common hypertrophy resistance mode in i) replacing connective and adipose tissue by muscle tissue ii) maintaining muscular strength (myofibrillar content slightly increased in type IID fibres, moderate decline in type I fibres) iii) increasing the aerobic capacity in both the type I and type IID fibres (subsarcolemmal mitochondria increased in both fibre types) iv) positively affecting the lipid metabolism (even and slight increase of lipid in type I and type IID muscle fibres, respectively). The SuperSlow method of resistance training appears to be an effective approach for the everyday use being a save exercise intervention to increase aerobic capacity without suffering the loss of muscle strength thus reducing the risks of falls and injury and significantly contributing to a better quality of life in older age.
Sumo		#47	[-]
Posts: 1581 (11/05/09 06:05:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Fred wrote: It's when failure is achieved that matters. Fred it is not failure that matters but doing more work (weight×reps) than you did previously. Failure is simply reaching your perceived max for the day. You could be reaching failure whilst getting weaker and losing muscle each session - whereas if you do more work each session you are getting stronger and more muscled. Take Justin, he has been training superslow and going to 'failure' (though you cannot tell from his videos, I'm just going on what he claims). The problem is that he seems to have interpreted failure as failing to achieve any results. As Arnold said he could light a match under your bottom and you would feel the burn but it doesn't mean you are gaining. sumoman.com
Sumo		#48	[-]
Posts: 1581 (11/05/09 07:07:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Serious Strength wrote: *****I am thinking biology Steve. Bear in mind that I never ever said or suggested that the barbells and dumbbells don't work. In fact, I said the opposite. As a physician you should know that myofibrils, actin/myosin, etc. don't know from a barbell or a MedX machine. They are either stimulated to grow and allowed to grow or they are not. Do you really think that if a body builder quit squatting and instead did leg presses his quads would shrink and wither away? Of course not. And a bench press barely addresses the main function of the pecs which is humeral adduction. Fred, you misunderstand biology thinking. You are trying to deduce the best way of training as you understand the logic of training and so you look to evidence which supports your way of training. The biology way of thinking is to look at what the animals are doing and formulate a hypothesis as to why they are doing what they are doing - you've got it backwards and instead formulate a hypothesis as to what you think they should be doing and then try to educate them as to the 'correct' way. sumoman.com
Serious Strength		#49	[-]
Posts: 4364 (11/05/09 07:29:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sumo wrote: Fred wrote: It's when failure is achieved that matters. Fred it is not failure that matters but doing more work (weight×reps) than you did previously. **Where did I say that? Did I actually say that? Failure is simply reaching your perceived max for the day. You could be reaching failure whilst getting weaker and losing muscle each session - whereas if you do more work each session you are getting stronger and more muscled. Yes I know that. My training is quite progressive. In fact, for the past 4 months my chest press weight has gone from 430# to 490# for the exact same reps/TCF (4 reps or 0:58 seconds). This is after only 10 sessions. I can now do the 430# for 7 reps. Take Justin, he has been training superslow and going to 'failure' (though you cannot tell from his videos, I'm just going on what he claims). The problem is that he seems to have interpreted failure as failing to achieve any results. I have no interest in what Justin does or your interpretation of it. As Arnold said he could light a match under your bottom and you would feel the burn but it doesn't mean you are gaining. **My BAD machine last reading was the best I ever had. Nearly 162 pounds lean mass 20 pounds fat mass. My strength is up (meaning I am lifting heavier weights) in every single exercise I do save for my neck which I think requires more micro-loading. Going by your standards (more weight for the same or more reps) I am doing quite well.
sb413197		#50	[-]
Posts: 625 (11/05/09 07:56:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Serious Strength wrote: ***I am thinking biology Steve. Bear in mind that I never ever said or suggested that the barbells and dumbbells don't work. In fact, I said the opposite. As a physician you should know that myofibrils, actin/myosin, etc. don't know from a barbell or a MedX machine. They are either stimulated to grow and allowed to grow or they are not. Do you really think that if a body builder quit squatting and instead did leg presses his quads would shrink and wither away? Of course not. And a bench press barely addresses the main function of the pecs which is humeral adduction. I agree for the most part with the above. I think the primary point of discussion here is on an isolation only program as opposed to an isolation plus compound** program like most bodybuilders choose to use. There may be a tradition aspect, and machines have certainly gotten better, but I really think that if it worked just as well to have an isolation-only program, by this time you'd see significant numbers of bodybuilders doing that. Or at least a small percentage! I will admit that I don't know the reason that compound exercises add to the value of a program over isolation exercises. I strongly suspect that there is a different physiologic response when a synergy motion pattern is engaged as opposed to a single joint motion - not at the muscle level but neurologically, allowing more coordinated motor unit activation (which may in turn cause a different muscular adaptation in the end), since this is well documented to occur in the setting of neurologic injury. This may in turn have a different effect upon muscular adaptation by some unknown mechanism. As I have mentioned, if you take someone with a stroke and ask them to dorsiflex their ankle they may not move at all or almost nothing, but if you ask them to bring their whole leg up they get a more complete dorsiflexion at the ankle. There is also the "neurologic priming" phenomenon Lincoln mentioned a few weeks ago, where if you squeeze your hands hard you may get more force out of an extremity motion. In the end this is all speculation. But I suspect there is something like that going on, and while I can't explain it, I can observe it - in the training programs of successful bodybuilders. Steve Brose Last Edited By: sb413197 11/05/09 08:08:47. Edited 2 times.
sb413197		#51	[-]
Posts: 625 (11/05/09 08:22:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sumo wrote: The biology way of thinking is to look at what the animals are doing and formulate a hypothesis as to why they are doing what they are doing - you've got it backwards and instead formulate a hypothesis as to what you think they should be doing and then try to educate them as to the 'correct' way. Yep - and bodybuilders kind of remind me of river bison for some reason. Or maybe mountain gorillas Steve Brose
Sumo		#52	[-]
Posts: 1581 (11/05/09 08:30:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Fred wrote: **Where did I say that? Did I actually say that? Yes I know that. My training is quite progressive. In fact, for the past 4 months my chest press weight has gone from 430# to 490# for the exact same reps/TCF (4 reps or 0:58 seconds). This is after only 10 sessions. I can now do the 430# for 7 reps. I have no interest in what Justin does or your interpretation of it. **My BAD machine last reading was the best I ever had. Nearly 162 pounds lean mass 20 pounds fat mass. My strength is up (meaning I am lifting heavier weights) in every single exercise I do save for my neck which I think requires more micro-loading. Going by your standards (more weight for the same or more reps) I am doing quite well. "It's when failure is achieved that matters." you said it here Fred. Fred, the thing about slow training is that you can always progress, I found that when I did superslow I got stronger every session... problem was that when I actually came to 'test' my strength on the actual lifting of weights I had got weaker. I have no interest in Justin either, but he is an excellent example of the stereotypical HITer. Remember how I kept harping on about his lack of video evidence, then when you chimed in and said "C'mon Justin, show us something!" he went mysteriously shy? I mention him because one can use him as a reference as to what not to do. For example if ever I feel that I am hypothesising too much I think of Justin and his terrible condition and it makes me go back to simple observations of what the strong people are actually doing. Fred, those impedance machines are about as accurate as Old Wives tales - I would place more faith in doing skinfold thicknesses and tape measures, for example measure your skinfold thickness at four points around the measured circumference of your thigh and see how it changes with time. And of course weigh yourself. sumoman.com
Serious Strength		#53	[-]
Posts: 4364 (11/05/09 09:57:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sumo wrote: Serious Strength wrote: ***I am thinking biology Steve. Bear in mind that I never ever said or suggested that the barbells and dumbbells don't work. In fact, I said the opposite. As a physician you should know that myofibrils, actin/myosin, etc. don't know from a barbell or a MedX machine. They are either stimulated to grow and allowed to grow or they are not. Do you really think that if a body builder quit squatting and instead did leg presses his quads would shrink and wither away? Of course not. And a bench press barely addresses the main function of the pecs which is humeral adduction. Fred, you misunderstand biology thinking. You are trying to deduce the best way of training as you understand the logic of training and so you look to evidence which supports your way of training. Confirmation bias, yes I know. I am very biased that the way I train builds muscle and strength just like the way you think about what you do. Like anyone's thinking who thinks a certain way about something who is not delusional. Sometimes a person has a confirmation bias based on facts. You may call their view a confirmation bias, but their bias happens to be true. Many people think Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories Bad Calories has a confirmation bias about carbohydrate rich diets. However, research and biochemistry proves his hypothesis worthy. The biology way of thinking is to look at what the animals are doing and formulate a hypothesis as to why they are doing what they are doing - you've got it backwards and instead formulate a hypothesis as to what you think they should be doing and then try to educate them as to the 'correct' way. A good example is how **You didn't finish your sentence. I am simply adding to the mix. Besides, body builders DO use a mixture of devices to grow as large as possible so your point about me getting it backwards is moot.
Serious Strength		#54	[-]
Posts: 4364 (11/05/09 14:19:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sumo wrote: Fred wrote: **Where did I say that? Did I actually say that? Yes I know that. My training is quite progressive. In fact, for the past 4 months my chest press weight has gone from 430# to 490# for the exact same reps/TCF (4 reps or 0:58 seconds). This is after only 10 sessions. I can now do the 430# for 7 reps. I have no interest in what Justin does or your interpretation of it. My BAD machine last reading was the best I ever had. Nearly 162 pounds lean mass 20 pounds fat mass. My strength is up (meaning I am lifting heavier weights) in every single exercise I do save for my neck which I think requires more micro-loading. Going by your standards (more weight for the same or more reps) I am doing quite well. "It's when failure is achieved that matters." you said it here Fred. You quoted me out of context. This is what was said: "Fred you list your exercises which shows that you do '30 pounds 100 times' compared to my '300 pounds 10 times'... It is quite easy to render muscular failure by putting them under constant tension, anything over about 40% of max tension will render failure due to occlusion of the blood vessels... No. Not true at all. I guess you're not used to doing so much work in one day. It's when failure is achieved that matters. Much past 120 seconds seems to be of little benefit to hypertrophy. I don't have the desire to cite the references right now." What this means is not that you HAVE to reach failure but that WHEN you do, the time it takes you to reach failure matters. If you did a barbell biceps curl using 10 pounds you'd eventually reach failure - it might take 20 minutes but you'll reach failure. This won't build muscle however. Please read what I write more closely. Fred, the thing about slow training is that you can always progress, I found that when I did superslow I got stronger every session... problem was that when I actually came to 'test' my strength on the actual lifting of weights I had got weaker. *You were like most slow trainees - using weights that were much too light. And lifting the heaviest weights possible for a rep or two is not the best way to build muscle or improve upon internal health parameters. You also grossly underestimate the specificity principle. If you came to lift at my gym, you'd be weaker than I am in several exercises. I have absolutely no doubt about it. But if you were truly stronger than I am you would be able to outlift me in every single exercise. WE may never know as you probably will never get here. I have no interest in Justin either, but he is an excellent example of the stereotypical HITer. *No he is not. He is atypical. Doug Holland is more sterotypical. HITers usually come from a free weight background and have lifted hard and intensely. Hardcore HITers are usually strong as hell. Drew Israel is a sterotypical HITer. Ken Leistner too. Ken Mannie, Jim Flanagan, Kim and John Wood - folks like them. Remember how I kept harping on about his lack of video evidence, then when you chimed in and said "C'mon Justin, show us something!" he went mysteriously shy? I mention him because one can use him as a reference as to what not to do. For example if ever I feel that I am hypothesising too much I think of Justin and his terrible condition and it makes me go back to simple observations of what the strong people are actually doing. Again he is atypical. Fred, those impedance machines are about as accurate as Old Wives tales - I would place more faith in doing skinfold thicknesses and tape measures, for example measure your skinfold thickness at four points around the measured circumference of your thigh and see how it changes with time. And of course weigh yourself. **I have and the machine is just as accurate. I find that skinfolds are less accurate actually.
AShortt		#55	[-]
Posts: 836 (11/05/09 15:46:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sumo wrote Fred it is not failure that matters but doing more work (weight×reps) than you did previously. *Only if you want to build endurance - the ability to do more of the same. Strength/muscle growth comes from the high tension and high muscular effort. Regards, Andrew FitnessClinician.com**
Serious Strength		#56	[-]
Posts: 4364 (11/06/09 05:03:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	AShortt wrote: Sumo wrote Fred it is not failure that matters but doing more work (weight×reps) than you did previously. ***Only if you want to build endurance - the ability to do more of the same. Strength/muscle growth comes from the high tension and high muscular effort. To add, it is true that you can build muscle without ever taking the exercise to complete positive (concentric) failure. To deny this is to not have eyes in your head or an understanding of muscle physiology. That said, how hard does the effort have to be? We know that if you use a challenging weight in squats - challenging for you that is - and only perform one rep and stop when you could do 10 reps, you probably will not stimulate muscular growth. Now, if you did one rep and stopped. Then another and stopped and so on, this is still a series of reps. I am saying one rep, stop and the exercise is over. No more reps. Done. Few would disagree with me that this would do little to grow muscle, am I correct? So then this begs the question - how many squats should I do? How many sets? If the goal is to increase muscle mass (we're talking training here not diet or sleep or supplements, etc.) when DO I stop? Let's also agree that progressing the weight is also a given. When do you progress it? If one rep won't do the trick, will 2? 3? 5? Will attempting the 11th do it? Will attempting the 11th hurt progress as much as only attempting one rep? Do we or can we agree that if you are lifting a heavier weight today in a given exercise using the same form, stance, etc., than you were a month ago for the same or more reps and/or time, that your strength has improved? If so, does this also mean that you have added lean mass? Clearly many trainees adopt and utilize very different lifting systems that, month after month, result in gains in strength an lean mass gains. These different systems employ the use of free weights, machines, bands, rocks, logs, stones, etc. all of which represent resistance. To belittle any one of them is foolish unless injury is apparent. So the questions are: How much tension is required? For how long must the tension be sustained? Does the source of the tension really matter?
Sumo		#57	[-]
Posts: 1581 (11/06/09 09:23:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Fred wrote: So then this begs the question - how many squats should I do? How many sets? If the goal is to increase muscle mass (we're talking training here not diet or sleep or supplements, etc.) when DO I stop? Let's also agree that progressing the weight is also a given. When do you progress it? If one rep won't do the trick, will 2? 3? 5? Will attempting the 11th do it? Will attempting the 11th hurt progress as much as only attempting one rep? Fred, I answer these questions in a scientific fashion here. Regarding your statement that Dr Ken, etc, are typical HITers whereas Justin is atypical (or atwit)... I've seen videos of Dr Ken and his acolytes and you train nothing like them!!!! If anything I train more like Dr Ken and his acolytes than you do, except I don't make a point of ending up a dribbling wreck on the floor; Dr Ken, for example, trains at a pretty normal speed and favours the big lifts; http://www.gridironincny.com/videos/flash/ken/ken.html sumoman.com
Lincoln		#58	[-]
Posts: 2027 (11/06/09 09:26:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I think Question 1 needs to be reworded. 1. How much tension will produce optimal results? (After all, no tension at all is required. You can sit on the couch all day and still be healthy. You can skip weight training altogether and still win football games. You can take drugs or go through adolescence, not lift weights at all, and still put on muscle.) I'm going to pose the theory that for optimal results, maximal possible tension is a reasonable assumption. In answering Question 2, bear in mind that, for various physiological reasons, maximum muscular force can only be sustained for about 10 seconds or so. Efforts beyond 10 seconds will be at a reduced level of tension and force. I'm going to pose the theory that for optimal results, training should stop when the effort can no longer produce an approximation of maximal force. In answering Question 3, according to EMG analysis and for other reasons, yes. The source matters. "...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." Teddy Roosevelt
Serious Strength		#59	[-]
Posts: 4364 (11/06/09 11:40:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sumo wrote: Fred wrote: So then this begs the question - how many squats should I do? How many sets? If the goal is to increase muscle mass (we're talking training here not diet or sleep or supplements, etc.) when DO I stop? Let's also agree that progressing the weight is also a given. When do you progress it? If one rep won't do the trick, will 2? 3? 5? Will attempting the 11th do it? Will attempting the 11th hurt progress as much as only attempting one rep? Fred, I answer these questions in a scientific fashion here. Regarding your statement that Dr Ken, etc, are typical HITers whereas Justin is atypical (or atwit)... I've seen videos of Dr Ken and his acolytes and you train nothing like them!!!! ****Dr. Ken was one example. I train just like Doug Holland does. HITers use heavy weights, train to fialure and sometimes beyond. Rep speeds vary. Drew Israel uses slow reps. You're just making stuff up to suit some contrary position as per usual. If anything I train more like Dr Ken and his acolytes than you do, except I don't make a point of ending up a dribbling wreck on the floor; Dr Ken, for example, trains at a pretty normal speed and favours the big lifts; http://www.gridironincny.com/videos/flash/ken/ken.html
Sumo		#60	[-]
Posts: 1581 (11/06/09 12:30:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Fred wrote: You're just making stuff up to suit some contrary position as per usual. Fred, that is not logical statement as I presented the video evidence, here I am squatting and deadlifting; Here is Dr Ken squatting; http://www.gridironincny.com/videos/flash/ken/ken.html and here is Doug Holland deadlifting; Dr Ken and Doug Holland are both much stronger than you and well muscled - they do squats and deadlifts. I do squats and deadlifts and am stronger than you and I am about the same size as you though, dare I say it, am not quite as fat as you. I have legs, back, hips - you have a pair of arms (though I curl more than you) and a chest. Therefore it would be logical to conclude that squats and deadlifts must have something to do with this. sumoman.com

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Experiences with a minimalist approach to training

Quick Reply