Dave tate on hypertrophy

[coolcolj]

cool article, makes a lot of sense to me


http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=CEED8AFF89AB769CB3ED03897645A670.hydra?id=880036

 

[36drew]

I like most of what he had to say, except for his part about the pump. He said to finish off every workout with a bit of work to 'pump this shit out of a muscle'. I though I had just read that the pump was debunked. Is there any benefit to it?

 

[BiggT]

Good read, I like Dave tate, and he has a knack for writing, his stuff is always both knowledgable and enjoyable to read.

I am a little unclear if he meant box squatting will help a power squat or it will help an olympic squat. From my experience box squatting does absolutely nothing for an olympic squat and vice versa. Both train different areas and can have functional carryover to different areas and there are benefits to including both, but from my own experience, one does not transfer over to the other.

And, I have argued this before, but the only thing I feel exaggerated, 60", ultra-wide stances are good for is maximizing equipment. They seem to have come about around the time equipment and maximizing it exploded. For anybody looking to do anything besides compete in an equipped powerlifting contest, I think a closer stance is more ideal. Not necessarily olympic squats, but an athletic, more functional stance. I don't feel specific hypertrophy work for the quads will improve the olympic squat if you're not olympic squatting.

What he says about the workload makes sense and I agree in part. I think range of motion is more important though (this has nothing to do with powerlifting). For example, you can pull more weight off of 36" pins than you can the floor, but pulling from the floor uses more muscles and develops more muscles in my opinion.

The stuff about no squatting or GMs or anything with bar on your back at times for 3 weeks or so is great, in reality it is just a form of deloading though, and it does work.

I totally disagree on the gorging the muscle with blood thing. That makes absolutely no sense that a muscle will grow by flushing and pumping it with blood. It makes perfect sense that the muscle will temporarily swell up from the activity, but there are no lasting effects. Citing what pro bodybuilders do does not in any way justify that approach, as it is clear that pro bodybuilders are not necessarily a sound authority on anything training related. Look at all the pump boys at the gyms curling and gorging and blasting away and all they have to show for it are 13" arms. I have neevr been to WSB, but the guys I have talked to who have trained there and the literature Louie makes readily available and the guys I know who train "WSB-style" seem to ge tthe hypertrophy effect from training assistance work in the 8-10 rep range for around 40 total reps. I could be wrong about what goes on at WSB in Ohio today, but the 8-10 rep thing for 40 total reps would make much more sense to me than gorging a muscle with blood. UNLESS, Tate considers 4x10 or 5x8 to be 'gorging a muscle with blood' and 'pumping the fuck out of it'. If he does, it is just his wording that I am taking wrong, because when I hear those phrases I think of someone doing 6 sets of concentration curls for 15 reps a set. But again, I consider doing say 5 sets of 8 skullcrushers and trying to up the weight you handle for 8 reps to be hypertrophy work, and I consider doing 37 drop sets of cable curls to be pumping......it just might be my misinterpretation.

The stuff about work ethic is awesome, and Tate certainly knows powerlifting and how to train for it, and how to exert maximum force in to a lift and how to train for it. However, I think he misses the mark on some stuff sometimes that isn't related to powerlifting. Louie, in my opinion, would be a much beter trainer for sports other than powerlifting because he seems to understand and freely admit that most of powerlifting training is centered around maximizing equipment that is allowable in a contest, where tate's articles always seem to hint that he feels training as a powerlifter is the one and only correct way to train any and all athletes

 

[Madcow2]

Fun article.

I totally disagree on the gorging the muscle with blood thing. That makes absolutely no sense that a muscle will grow by flushing and pumping it with blood. It makes perfect sense that the muscle will temporarily swell up from the activity, but there are no lasting effects. Citing what pro bodybuilders do does not in any way justify that approach, as it is clear that pro bodybuilders are not necessarily a sound authority on anything training related.

I felt the same way. I've come accross some stuff attributed to Dave on the repetition method where he states that only on the final rep (i.e. failure) are all motor units recruited and this is why it's popular among bodybuilders. That's nice for getting written up on a BBing site and I'm sure a lot of HIT and anabolic board guys would like to believe that but we all know 50-80% depending on the muscle of a rep maximum will recruit everything and from then on it's synchronization and rate coding. Meaning - your first rep of a 5RM will likely fire up everything and by the time you get to your 5th rep, motor untis have begun dropping out and the nervous system is hammering away with increased rate coding to make up for it. And if doing your 15RM, you won't get 100% recruitment on the first rep but as fatigue builds your 'current rep max' will lower through the set and somewhere in there very short of 15, you'll have your 100%.

The stuff about work ethic is awesome, and Tate certainly knows powerlifting and how to train for it, and how to exert maximum force in to a lift and how to train for it. However, I think he misses the mark on some stuff sometimes that isn't related to powerlifting. Louie, in my opinion, would be a much beter trainer for sports other than powerlifting because he seems to understand and freely admit that most of powerlifting training is centered around maximizing equipment that is allowable in a contest, where tate's articles always seem to hint that he feels training as a powerlifter is the one and only correct way to train any and all athletes.

I've been a Westside and fan of Louie's for a long time probably since the early 1990s. So when I say this, this is the 2% of the stuff that has irked me where I've loved the other 98% (and that's about as good a ratio as one can get - not that my stamp of approval means crap either way). This was a few of the things that always irked me. Saying that the clean or snatch was no faster than any of the powerlifts when a 1RM was executed which is obviously wrong to anyone watching not to mention provable through physics that it's not the case (in which case anyone could at least rack their best deadlift with a slow shrug). I've seen the case made that sprinters should employ the wide squat with feet pointed forward. Taking Starr's 'Train the Deadlift by Not Deadlifting' article and using the goodmorning but writing off the fact that all the other lifts in the program were OLs and derrivatives and that Starr was an OL so with the amount of pulling he did all the time the GM had a high probability of making the biggest 'noticable' change for him (and given their proclivity for high power output speed work and non-eccentric based exercises I'd think the clean and snatch would be more than moderately attractive for assistance work not to mention pulling from the floor and carryover to the dead).

Like I said though, that along with your observation that ultrawide squatting and board presses have gained popularity as equipment has evolved and not because they have always been effective as core lifts with carryover to athletics or other non-equipped endevours, those are pretty much the only difference of opinion I have.

EDIT - I originally just read it and wasn't going to get into all that but since enough of us are here maybe there's some value.

 

[BiggT]

Yeah, I too wanted to be careful how I worded things. I think you and I are on the same page, but for everyone else, I want to be clear that I have no problemwith Louie and Dave and you'd have to be crazy not to respect them, and MOST of what they have to say is great info., and in no way should either of them care what I have to say......but....

I, too, always was annoyed with the bit about the o-lifts being no faster than a proper 1RM attempt at the powerlifts, I cringe when I read something to the effect of "box squats will help an athlete gain just as much explosion as olympic lifting", and I just think squatting with the feet 60" apart is not functional, unless you're training for a fully equipped lift. Olympic squats train many more muscles that are in use during athletic activity, and yes, they do recruit hips and hamstrings when sunk all the way down. If you want to work wider for more hip recruitment, I love the athletic-type squat Mark Ripptoe teaches his kids.....that is functional, people tend to think the typical PL-style squat is athletic and functional, but honestly, I can't name one sport or activity where you stand stationary with the feet 60-70" apart. I also disagree with an article Louie once wrote that said the olympic lifts need to be trained less frequently and rotate in more partial stuff and stuff that trains the same muscles, much like the WSB guys train their lifts.....the thing that gets me is that he couldn't just admit that Snatches and Clean and Jerks required more speed, skill, explosion, cns recruitment, and technique than BP/SQ/DL.....basically if you don't clean for 3 months you'll need to 'relearn' the most efficient neural pathway, you don't just grip and rip the bar, and guys who miss this come across as not fully understanding the lifts and having no business knocking them.

Again, the "interpretation/butchering" of the Starr article is worth mentioning. It is almost like a childish slap in the face at the olympic lifts. Of course Starr's DL would go up by not doing it because he was pulling from the floor with enormous frequency, he was a national-level o-lifter and his cleans and snatches and variants were not being done with token weights..... I would say that has better carry-over to another pull from the floor than a GM (Also, Starr pulled his deads conventional, meaning even greater carry-over from o-lift variants from the floor). O-lifts would not carry-over to a sumo pull done where you try to 'fall back', but to a conventional DL, they most certainly would considering the same muscles are involved and the same stance is used....A lot of it is about neural pathways, and not simply training the 'same muscles' in some form.....if that were the case machine work would carry over to compound lifts....................I just think it was very misleading of the author to say it was the GMs that probably did it (although GMs are a GREAT movement).

All that said, I think Louie and Dave know their stuff and have the track record to prove it, but I don't understand the anti-o-lifts for all athletes stance. Louie seems to not have as much of an issue admitting that things like board work, lockouts, partials, ultra-wide stances, etc are for PL to maximize the equipment, where Dave seems to suggest that this type of thing is best for functional carry-over to athletics, and I totally disagree with that.

 

[Madcow2]

I think Louie may have changed his opinion now on the frequency thing on OL even though I remember his original stance. That's a high skill movement and if you want to handle heavy weights with any degree of success in competition, you need to lift heavy in training and do it as often as possible. And while there's a lot of ways of going about that, you don't see anyone doing well that handles this in a materially different way. I kind of liken it to if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail, and even if you have the best hammer in the world that doesn't necessarily mean you are going to carve wood with it,

I agree about Starr's article being a bit misleading in reference to the goodmorings. The specific words were "The final exercise for the deadlift is my favorite and the one which I personally believe contributes the most to my pulling strength."

The operative word there was "My" meaning within the context of Bill Starr and that context includes his training and training history. We are talking a top level olympic lifter who pulled heavy weight in the classic lifts and varriants on a high frequency basis throughout his career so it's important to realize the "my" is within this context and not that he's saying he could be a great deadlifter with only good mornings and squats. The problem is that he also said that there were four exercises that carried over extremely well to the deadlift (hence the entire article and program) - powercleans, high-pulls, heavy shrugs (power shrug), and goodmornings. And stuff like "The power clean may seem out of place in a power lifter's routine, but it is such a basic a basic builder of pulling power that every conscientious power lifter should include them immediately." The whole article is about duplication of movement and carrying speed through the top of the pull where many deadlifters miss (and this was 1969 also which shows just how much of an original thinker this guy was).

To basically take the entire article and walk away with the deadlift is too taxing to all the time and I can do it all with goodmornings is a huge stretch. Years ago this was my biggest pet peave with WSB in that I simply didn't feel they did any form of pull frequently enough to really maximize their deadlift (and as equipment gradually took over the drove squat/bench poundages up to DL and beyond range the lift has lost a lot of its importance in determining total). But from what I've seen over the past 5 years or so they've been doing a lot more pulling although IMO without OL variants you can't carry speed "through" the top end in training and speed deadlifts with bands and chains can't address this as you can't maintain maximum acceleration through the extension and people are still missing at lockout.

Here's copies of the original Starr article if you or anyone else is interested: http://www.americanpowerliftevolution.net/New Folder 1969/dlapproach1.html

 

[RipStone]

Hey Madcow, I was wondering what your thoughts were on Dave Tate's statement that you should squat in cycles? That is, that one should squat for (I believe he said) 14 weeks in a row max, then follow it up with 3-4 weeks were they dont squat at all(or put any weight in their back...so no GMs, BB lunges, etc) in order to not overload the CNS. And during that 4 week time period focus on hypertrophying the muscles around the knee with one legged DB squat, lunges, etc

I would think that this approach would be very dependant on the level a lifter is at.

 

[Madcow2]

Hey Madcow, I was wondering what your thoughts were on Dave Tate's statement that you should squat in cycles? That is, that one should squat for (I believe he said) 14 weeks in a row max, then follow it up with 3-4 weeks were they dont squat at all(or put any weight in their back...so no GMs, BB lunges, etc) in order to not overload the CNS. And during that 4 week time period focus on hypertrophying the muscles around the knee with one legged DB squat, lunges, etc

I would think that this approach would be very dependant on the level a lifter is at.

Well, I think just about everyone with a brain and certainly everyone running any program that I've ever suggested is squatting in cycles. What those cycles should look like will be very individual as would the timing and necessity of assistance work (certainly a novice is not going to require a whole lot of special work after a couple training blocks). It's also important to realize that a wide stance and possibly equipped PL squat is a very different animal. I also didn't see him taking a full squat break that frequently, I was under the impression he said it was after a year and being somewhat overtrained.

 

[d-dub]

I, too, always was annoyed with the bit about the o-lifts being no faster than a proper 1RM attempt at the powerlifts, I cringe when I read something to the effect of ".

Hi biggt, i just grabbed a bit of your quote. I was under the impression that they were comparing a speed box squat with the olympic lifts. Not a 1RM vs olympic lifts.

The theory being a speed box squat is far easier to learn from a technical perspective with similiar results as far as performance. Which I think is a pretty fair assesment.

This however fails to take into account that the olympic lifts just plain rock, even if you suck at them

Thoughts?

 

[BiggT]

Hi biggt, i just grabbed a bit of your quote. I was under the impression that they were comparing a speed box squat with the olympic lifts. Not a 1RM vs olympic lifts.

The theory being a speed box squat is far easier to learn from a technical perspective with similiar results as far as performance. Which I think is a pretty fair assesment.

This however fails to take into account that the olympic lifts just plain rock, even if you suck at them

Thoughts?

Sure a speed box squat is easier to teach, coach, and learn than the olympic lifts. Thats my whole issue with guys bashing olympic lifts. Instead of just saying something along the lines of "I am really not too comfortable coaching these, as I am not very proficient at them myself, so we try to develop speed in other ways we feel more confident teaching".....they start with 'box squats give more explosion', 'olympic lifting is too hard and pointless and you can't use enough weight' .....and it just isn't true. If taught correctly within a few months, heavy weights can be used.

I don't feel the results in terms of increased performance are anywhere close. The Olympic lifts provide much more in terms of stabalization, CNS recruitment, balance, athleticism, and also explosion and speed. Although speed squatting is done very fast, I don't understand how on Earth anyone can say a speed box squat requires the same speed of movement as a snatch or that it recruits as much of the body and requires as much CNS recruitment.

Part of my point is that a lot of the WSB stuff is excellent training for powerlifting, and while speed work on a lift helps develop neural pathways for that lift, and helps the body learn to perform a lift in an explosive manner, in terms of functional athletic carry-over and explosion with respect to movement during athletics and non-static activities, I don't see them as anywhere near as effective as the olympic lifts. All I can say if somebody insists that a speed box squat is done as fast as a clean or as fast as a snatch (this one is laughable) is that they either are not being honest as to why they don't like the classic lifts, or they just really, honestly do not understand the olympic lifts, but usually I find people bash the lifts because they have been frustrated trying to teach them and or learn them at some point.

This kind of got a little off-subject as I do not know what Louie or Dave would say today about olympic lifting, but there are general attitudes in the PL community from guys who cross over into training other athletes about the olympic lifts, and it really just comes down to the coach can't do them and/or teach them, so they bash them.

To Louie's credit, he is honest and realistic. He makes his methods available to everyone and will work with anyone, regardless of their strength, so long as they are serious about training. He freely admits that a lot of what they do is to improved equipped lifts and he says without batting an eyelash stuff like bench shirts take the need for starting strength out of the lift.....things that most powerlifters would take offense to, he is honest with himself and his lifters about. With tate's articles, and some others in the PL community, they seem to try to convey that the things SPECIFIC to improving an equipped lift will carry over to athletics, and it just makes no sense. For example, guys squat with their feet 65" apart because it maximizes what they get out of their equipment and is the best way to squat for an equipped pl-style squat, not because it is the best way to squat for functional carry-over to athletics, and back when suits and working them wasn't such a focus of PL, nobody had those exaggerated stances. Louie would probably say this.....from what I have read from Dave and some other prominent figures in PL, they seem to hint that they feel things like ultra-wide squatting is ideal for all, and I don't understand the thinking.

 

[RipStone]

Well, I think just about everyone with a brain and certainly everyone running any program that I've ever suggested is squatting in cycles. What those cycles should look like will be very individual as would the timing and necessity of assistance work (certainly a novice is not going to require a whole lot of special work after a couple training blocks). It's also important to realize that a wide stance and possibly equipped PL squat is a very different animal. I also didn't see him taking a full squat break that frequently, I was under the impression he said it was after a year and being somewhat overtrained.

So how would one an intermediate level lifter( I know you dont like that term) using SG 5x5 go about squatting in cycles? Like I have been doing SF 5x5 for 13 weeks now and havent taken a break from squats....should I? According to Tate the answer is clear( I think ). But I am still progressing, so wouldnt taking the bar off my back be a mistake?

BTW, heres the quote...

T-Nation: Okay, so why squat in cycles?

Tate: One reason is because although the squat is one of the best exercises for mass, it's also one of the main exercises that people stick to way too long.

Let's say you hit an overtraining state. Diagnose that however you want: lack of progress, morning pulse rate, feeling like shit, whatever. If you're in that state and you're continuously putting a bar on your back, which is a load on your spine (and your spine is your central nervous system), then you're inhibiting your ability to recover from other training.

T-Nation: You know, a lot of hardcore people wouldn't think of not squatting for a period of weeks!

Tate: I think it's important. It's very apparent that there are times when you need to get the bar off your back. Every time I went through a phase where I took the bar off my back, my muscle hypertrophy increased significantly. Now, keep in mind the overtraining state was in effect, there were injuries in effect, and there was probably a year when I didn't have a bar off my back.

But I think that for every 12 to 16 weeks of squatting, you should go through a three week phase where you take the bar off your back. Now, with that three week break, I'm not saying you don't squat; maybe you use the belt squat, which we use a lot of. It's a belt squat machine that allows you to squat but there's no loading on your spine.

Also, when you're going through that phase, there are no good mornings or safety squat bar lifts either – no bar on your back whatsoever! What you're reduced to is a lot of glute-ham raises, a lot of hamstring and quad work, step-ups, lunges, and belt squats.

What you find is that your leg mass increases for two reasons. First, your body is able to begin recovery like it normally should. And second, you're using exercises that you probably haven't been using for the last 12 to 16 weeks. "

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

I'm not reading all the respones in the thread right now, so someone may already have covered this, but there is reason for getting the "pump" in the muscle in order to induce hypertrophy. This will count as metabolic work, and will cause sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. It's real. Look it up.

And I just read this in the article:

Lactic Acid Tolerance training with the dynamic squat (low rest period and very high sets) can also do wonders for increasing muscle mass because of the GH production associated with this type of training.

Jesus H. Christ.

I also don't like how those wide-stanced box squats have the shins like so:

/ \ and not | |

Pfft. ASCII won't work well here.

Oh, and Tate is a walking invalid. Just ask Alwyn Cosgrove.

 

[coolcolj]

part 2...

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=52D6904276057E1A3F5B659573E1D3AE.hydra?id=881528

 

[BiggT]

The 'Breakthrough Factor' part is great, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Madcow2]

So how would one an intermediate level lifter( I know you dont like that term) using SG 5x5 go about squatting in cycles? Like I have been doing SF 5x5 for 13 weeks now and havent taken a break from squats....should I? According to Tate the answer is clear( I think ). But I am still progressing, so wouldnt taking the bar off my back be a mistake?

I guess it's something he does. I certainly know a lot of people that don't but I understand his rationale for it. He's also handling a lot more poundage than anyone using the linear 5x5 program, squatting in a very different style that takes its toll on the body noticably more, and his needs/training is not necessarily what others need.

Big point - you want to be very careful borrowing from stuff like this as the context is the key. The context here is Dave Tate's body, lifts, training, experience, and purpose. Another example is 10 year old aspiring weightlifter in his first year looking at a program and personal training methods coming from a lifter on the Bulgarian team. Sure that guy does a boatload of classic lifts all the time and trains with laser pointed specificity. Of course if you look at what they had him doing at 10 years old and along the way to develop that lifter, it was likely a lot more general with the purpose of overall development at first and then gradually became more and more specialized as he developed. (I'll also say I'm not an expert in how Bulgaria trains junior and beginner lifters but this is what I understand to be the case - and regardless it makes my example work).

 

[RipStone]

I guess it's something he does. I certainly know a lot of people that don't but I understand his rationale for it. He's also handling a lot more poundage than anyone using the linear 5x5 program, squatting in a very different style that takes its toll on the body noticably more, and his needs/training is not necessarily what others need.

Big point - you want to be very careful borrowing from stuff like this as the context is the key. The context here is Dave Tate's body, lifts, training, experience, and purpose. Another example is 10 year old aspiring weightlifter in his first year looking at a program and personal training methods coming from a lifter on the Bulgarian team. Sure that guy does a boatload of classic lifts all the time and trains with laser pointed specificity. Of course if you look at what they had him doing at 10 years old and along the way to develop that lifter, it was likely a lot more general with the purpose of overall development at first and then gradually became more and more specialized as he developed. (I'll also say I'm not an expert in how Bulgaria trains junior and beginner lifters but this is what I understand to be the case - and regardless it makes my example work).

Thanks for the explanation. I figured I was taking things a little out of context. I guess it was a little difficult at time to interprupt Tate's messages cus the very nature of the article was sort of different than what you normally see Tate write on/say, etc

 

[Madcow2]

Yeah - like Biggt said, it's really about deloading and the squat being stressful (or stimulative) to the entire system with the bar on your back which loads just about everything underneath it and just about all musculature. This is just the way he handles things around every 3-4 months. The deadlift is right there too but Westside makes a point not to routinely pull heavy so it doesn't factor in as much.

 

[Lestat]

good read