How OFTEN do you SWITCH EXERCISES?

[Girlwonder]

I heard that variety in exercises is also important but when I tried alternating exercises as for hamstring curls for 1 week then deadlifts the 2nd week, I find that when I come back to doing my hamstring curls the 3rd week, I get weaker Do you guys know what I"m talking about??

 

[granby140]

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=214813

 

[Mad Max]

You shouln't be alternating deadlifts with hamstring curls. Deadlifts nail you glute and the curls hit the hams, one is a power movement and the other isn't. You should alternate deadlifts with hacksquats or another power exercice like a hip slead. You want the same movement but a excercise that hits it from a different angle. Hope that helps.
---PEACE---Mad Max

 

[ANVIL276]

It's more important for the seasoned veteran than for the novice.
If you have less than 1 year of serious training then you would be better off getting stronger on core exercises.
Variety is a useful tool when you hit a platau.

 

[Girlwonder]

You shouln't be alternating deadlifts with hamstring curls. Deadlifts nail you glute and the curls hit the hams, one is a power movement and the other isn't. You should alternate deadlifts with hacksquats or another power exercice like a hip slead. You want the same movement but a excercise that hits it from a different angle. Hope that helps.
---PEACE---Mad Max

ok what if i switch from hams curls to basic squats? i did that and i also got weaker(my hams i meant)
p.s what is "core exercise" ?

 

[Nelson Montana]

That ain't it.

The reason you're weaker is the reason it's effective.

When you stick with one exercise, the body adapts and becomes more efficient at performing it. That's why if you want to bench more weight, you practice benching, not developing the pecs. In order for a muscle to grow it must work harder, not easier.

You need to choose whether you want to be strong or muscular. Sure, when you get muscular you get stronger and when you get stronger you get more muscular, but they're side effects of each other. It's possible to be good at one and not very good at the other.

The muscle doesn't care what the weight is. It only knows stress.

(BTW: Lot's of people will disagree with this, but they're wrong).

 

[Mad Max]

Core exercises are the basic movements that you should do when you first start bodybuilding, if your goal is to put on size. Bench press, squat, deadlist are some basic core excersises that will help you develope a base before sculpting your body. If your goal is to build up a good fame to sculpt then these are what you should include in your workouts.
Whenever you work a muscle there are individual muscles in each bodypart. Lets take the leg, you have the ham, glut, quad. If your working out your legs assuming you want to add mass on all these muscles you should do excersises that target each muscle. For glutes switch up deadlifts with lunges, hacksquat, hipslead. Then you should hit up the hams. Depending on your gym there should be at least 2 machines or cable you can use. So what i'm saying is don't leave out any of the muscles so that none of them will fall behind. If you can't do all in one day slpit it up for leags twice a week.If your only doing specific exercises that mainly hit the quad then of course the glutes and hams are gonna get weak and possibly lag.
---PEACE---Mad Max

 

[Girlwonder]

Madmax, um....hacksquat???hipslead??? I've never heard of exercises like that? how do you do that???

Ok so for ex: 1 week I do seated hams curls then the other week I do lying leg curls(or single lying leg curls) right??

 

[Mad Max]

You got it. I'm just saying make sure you work each seperate muscle of the bodypart and make sure you hit each one every week. If your just beginning I would look for a good book that illistrates all the basic and intermedieate excersises. It will make it alot eaisier for you to plan future workouts when you have more to pick from.
---PEACE---Mad Max

 

[Girlwonder]

You got it. I'm just saying make sure you work each seperate muscle of the bodypart and make sure you hit each one every week. If your just beginning I would look for a good book that illistrates all the basic and intermedieate excersises. It will make it alot eaisier for you to plan future workouts when you have more to pick from.
---PEACE---Mad Max

hey you still haven't told me what hacksquat and hipslead is???I'd like to try some new exercises

 

[Mad Max]

A hip-slead is a machine that you sit in at about a 90 degree angle. Your feet point towards the ceiling kind of. Your feet are place on a flat platform about 2 by 2. The weight is lowered by 2 railes that the platform is connected to.
A hacksquat is something you stand in that has shoulder pads and the weights go on the outside and it is a guided movement that you sqaut down to do. Most gyms have both of these.
---PEACE---Mad Max

 

[c3bodybuilding]

I'm curious why this hasn't been moved to the training bored yet. Thats where it belongs....

 

[Girlwonder]

A hip-slead is a machine that you sit in at about a 90 degree angle. Your feet point towards the ceiling kind of. Your feet are place on a flat platform about 2 by 2. The weight is lowered by 2 railes that the platform is connected to.
A hacksquat is something you stand in that has shoulder pads and the weights go on the outside and it is a guided movement that you sqaut down to do. Most gyms have both of these.
---PEACE---Mad Max

Ok thanks

 

[Debaser]

That ain't it.

The reason you're weaker is the reason it's effective.

When you stick with one exercise, the body adapts and becomes more efficient at performing it. That's why if you want to bench more weight, you practice benching, not developing the pecs. In order for a muscle to grow it must work harder, not easier.

You need to choose whether you want to be strong or muscular. Sure, when you get muscular you get stronger and when you get stronger you get more muscular, but they're side effects of each other. It's possible to be good at one and not very good at the other.

The muscle doesn't care what the weight is. It only knows stress.

(BTW: Lot's of people will disagree with this, but they're wrong).

Damn I guess I better tell doggcrapp, who is now over 300 lbs, to quit training for strength because it won't make him any bigger.

And those powerlifters who can squat over 1000, tell them to haul their tiny physiques and chicken legs out of here, and stop concentrating on getting stronger on the big basic lifts, because all they're doing is practicing them!

Size is a biproduct of strength. Period. If you are deadlifting 100 lbs now and in 5 years you deadlift 600 lbs, you will have gained some serious size along the way. Before some smartass talks about the one guy they know that weighs 40 lbs and can bench 700, this is referring to someone that is not a genetic strength anomaly, and is not eating to stay in a lower weight class.

I'm curious to know, before you started your first cycle, what were your bench (or dip), squat, and deadlift poundages? And what are they now?

 

[Nelson Montana]

Debaser: You missed the point completely. I think this happened once before. You read half the post and draw a conclusion based on that. Read it again.

Also, just because someone is BIGGER, doesn't mean they're more muscular. Sure, you can train heavy, eat like a horse and take a ton of gear and grow like crazy. But I've seen an awful lot of big strong blobs. I've also know some strong motherfucers who weren't real muscular. And yes, there are small guys who can outlift guys 100 pounds heavier. Shit, look at those strongman competitions. Those guys are big, but a lot of them don't have much of a body.

You're asking me about my lifts? What does that matter? I never trained for maximum lifts. I will say this: In the quest for a better looking body my squat tripled. And that was in my 30's -- totally natural.
My bench always sucked. When I dipped into the juice it started coming around, then I blew my shoulder out. (Let that be a lesson to me). I was able to do around 25 dips though. Today, at age 49, I have no desire to impress anyone with how much weight I can lift. I just want to look good and feel good. And I do.

 

[Debaser]

DC is pretty lean. Not contest shape but he says he can always see his intercostals and the line down the middle of his abs year round.

The reason I asked you about your lifts:

Stuart McRobert and several others have always advocated the 300-400-500 guideline. He says that in general, the 5'9" male once he reaches 300 lb bench, 400 lb squat, and 500 lb deadlift he will have reached around 190 lbs at 10% bodyfat. Isn't this right around where you are at except you took gear to get there? Not a slam but I think you just were not training correctly. You were focused on the wrong ideals instead of increasing your strength in the big basic lifts. If you increased your strength to those levels you would have seen significant physique changes. Realgains "proper steroid free training" post on the women's board is a really good read and reflects his own knowledge on the subject.

 

[Nelson Montana]

I've spoken with Stu and agree with a lot of what he says. But he sometimes falls ino the same mistaken mentality of many other strength coahes. They simply don't take into account that there are "hardgainers." (They don't want to bother with people who dont make good gains -- doesn't look good to show your methods don't work o everybody. It's easier to dismiss them) Strength coaches and guys like Stu will say the "hardgainer" is a myth and those people just don't train correctly. That's ridiculous. If that were the case, why can't all women get as strong as men? Why can't someone 80 years old get as ripped as someone 25? Hormones you say? No shit. So how can someone with a T level of 400 grow as much as someone with a T level of 800?

And that's just a PART of the puzzle. There's mitochordia selection. Prepensity towards nitrogen retention. RBC count.% of fast twith fibers vs slow twitch. Tendon insertion. Adaptation abilities. The list goes on and on.

I used to think the same thing about musical ability. I felt that as long as someone practiced enough they'd get better and better. But after teaching music for years I can say with all conviction, the truth is, some people just aren't as talanted as others. And no matter how much they practce they'll only get to a certain ability before leveling off. In the same sense, some people simply don't have the sufficient muscle fiber to grow as well as others, no matter how hard and how heavy they train.

Yes, I wasn't training correctly for years. I trained mostly the way you advocate. It isn't like you're informing me of something I didn't think of in 20 years. I thought, like everyone else, that the stronger I got, the more muscular I'd get. But I kept hitting a wall -- as is the case with thousands of other people. Then I learned that a hardgainer must train in a completely different fashion. Once I figured out how to do that best, that's when I started growing.

Had I done this in my 20's, who knows how much of a difference it would have made?
But I get a sense of redemption by being able to help others. Most every day I get letters from people who say they wish they read my book soonner. They could have saved a lot of time and a lot of money.

So that's what I do. And if I do say so myself, it's more meaningful than being able to lift another 50 pounds.

 

[Debaser]

That post strikes me as somewhat odd, considering Stuart McRobert pretty much made the term "Hardgainer" popular and even has a magazine called "Hardgainer" with 80+ issues and his style of training is referred to as "hardgainer training." So I doubt he will tell you that the term hardgainer is a myth. As a fan of Stuart it doesn't even sound like you are talking about him.

This training is a solution for those who are genetically average or below (though will still work wonders for the genetic elite). That's why it was created in the first place. Do you think you have worse genetics than THIS guy? I've never heard of a man, short of a quadrapeligic that was less suited for lifting. 6'3", 140 lbs wet, severe scoliosis, displaced hip, rounding of the shoulders, less than 6" wrist, 39" inseam and 36" sleeve. And he put on 72 lbs in 5 years. Now enlighten me on how this training supposedly doesn't work for "hardgainers."

 

[promet1]

Every 4 Weeks I change one in each muscle group....

 

[powerforward]

bump

 

[Nelson Montana]

Okay Debasser; Get ready to be enlightened.

The guy in that example was not a hardgainer. Being skinny at 18 years old means nothing. EVERYBODY fills out in the post teen years. And since he never trained before, there's no way of knowing hw well he would have responded. This is the problem with so many of these examples provided as "proof." Everybody's a 98 pound weakling once.

I was 145 pounds at age 36!
Well past my "formitive years" I put on 25 pounds of muscle witout ever seeing a steroid. And this was after a lifetime of training. So yes, I believe my example is more powerful and more applicable to adult trainers.

I will also reiterate, that I agree with a lot of Stu's methods. In fact, I wrote a review of "Beyond Brawn" and called it "one of the best books on the market." But even though he uses the term "hardgainer" his approach is a little too "one size fits all" for me. He's also a little closed in regard to steroid use, calling those who partake "cheaters." I don't want to slam Stu. He's one of the good guys. (And there are plenty of scum out there.) I just disagree with him on this issue. I believe my methods are better for hardgainers and I practice what I preach. The thousands of people who respond to my methods are proof as well. But if another method works for you, great.

 

[Debaser]

You were at that weight because you didn't know how to train correctly. That was one example but Stuart has listed other examples of guys that did 5-10 years of conventional training and gained little or nothing (sounds like your definition I suppose), then once switched to hardgainer style training they made gains unfathomable to them (drug free to boot).

Iron Addict never got past 180 lbs at 6'1" after 10 years of conventional training. After learning these methods (he's published a few articles since then and written so much on the subject of training and personally trained so many that I consider him an online guru), he too made the gains of his life. He made 235 drug free, 270 juiced.

 

[Realgains]

STUART MCROBERT....advocates proper training for THE NON STEROID USING TYPICAL MAN. He did not invent anything new at all but ia a TRUMPET on the subject of proper steroid free training.

He built his body from nothing with very shitty genetics to pretty decent with a true 300 plus bench 400 plus rock bottom squat and 500 plus deadlift WITHOUT TOUCHING ROIDS.

Stuart IS NOT that rigid when it comes to what he considers correct training as he talks about variations and finding out what works best for you. BUT ...he is smart enough and has the guts to say BULLSHIT to the glossy magazines that promote BS for the average steroid free trainee.

The fact is that very few men can train intensly with weights steroid free more than three days per week without over training.

NELSON MONTANA....did I hear you right?....You think that McRobert doesn't want to admit that there are hard hainers and that he doesn't want to bother with them...WHAT!..MCROBERT calls himself a "hard gainer" and has a magazine called "Hard Gainer" ALL his advice is directed toward hard gainers. He believes that a very high percentage of men out there(MOST) are hard gainers.

Tell me you were talking about someone else.

I respect the guy for not using gear...and in a way Nelson he is right, we are cheaters for using steroids.

When I am not using roids I train very much along the lines that McRobert advocates. Even with roids I often only train three days per week and with a low volume of working sets and with mainly the big basic exercises....and I am no hard gainer. The most you will ever see me in the gym is every other day on a three way split but with two off days after every 4-6 workouts....this is too much frequency even for me, and my stout genetics, while off roids.

One of the lost secrets of the old timers(pre roids) that McRobert advocates is MICRO LOADING, that is using progressively heavier weights in tiny increments over months of training to trick the natural body into gains. I have even used this method while on roids with great success. See my sticky post on the womens forum on proper steroid free training for a detailed explaination of micro loading.

Too bad that proper training has been lost for the most part due to all the BS in the glossy mags. The people in the mags are genetic freaks on a ton of gear...shit they can train any way they want and achieve that level of developement.

Man do I miss the old "IRONMAN MAGAZINE" that was put out by the late great Peary Rader...it was full of great stuff for the non steroid using and typical man.


www.hardgainer.com


RG

 

[Nelson Montana]

Okay let me set the record straight here.

First of all, who are (Non pro-ball) steroid users cheating against? Is drinking coffee, cheating? Against who? What? I think that's a puesdo-morality issue, and one that McRoberts or anyone else has no right to make.

Now, on to the training style.

In a nutshell...

SM essentially recommends heavy intense, brief training with progressively heavier weights as do I. It can take an "average" person and turn them into something extrodinary.

BUT...

Not everyone responds well to that type of training. So although it must be a PART of everyones training protical, it isn't the optimum way to train for many people, especially in an exclusive manner. There are many reasons for this. (as mentioned in a previoious post) Also, for the older athlete or anyone who has been injured, ths type of training simply is not practical.

This line of thinking is a little too much like the myopic "Mike Menzter" approach, which is the cause of more injuries than an other training method. So if you survive not getting injured...great! You're a testement to the program. But if you get injured...well, then you have to stop and there's no way of knowing.

Get it?

 

[Zoomster]

WTF? The girl only asked about hamstrings.

Egomaniacal responses.

 

[Realgains]

Okay let me set the record straight here.

First of all, who are (Non pro-ball) steroid users cheating against? Is drinking coffee, cheating? Against who? What? I think that's a puesdo-morality issue, and one that McRoberts or anyone else has no right to make.

Now, on to the training style.

In a nutshell...

SM essentially recommends heavy intense, brief training with progressively heavier weights as do I. It can take an "average" person and turn them into something extrodinary.

BUT...

Not everyone responds well to that type of training. So although it must be a PART of everyones training protical, it isn't the optimum way to train for many people, especially in an exclusive manner. There are many reasons for this. (as mentioned in a previoious post) Also, for the older athlete or anyone who has been injured, ths type of training simply is not practical.

This line of thinking is a little too much like the myopic "Mike Menzter" approach, which is the cause of more injuries than an other training method. So if you survive not getting injured...great! You're a testement to the program. But if you get injured...well, then you have to stop and there's no way of knowing.

Get it?

Come on Nelson ...in a way roids use is cheating bro....but who really cares...I don't.

IMHO the only way to train for the average man is very strickly and well warned up to avoid injury, infrequently, low volume, and with a decent amount of intensity on the big basic exercises especially the squat and deadlifts. Pumping/isolation exercises will do little to nothing for most men.

There is no need to kill yourself in the gym with forced reps and the like as this is counter productive for most non roid users...but who really trains hard on the squat and deadlifts in your gym bro's...ALMOST NOBODY SQUATS or does DEADLIFTS of any kind let alone do them correctly and with enough intensity.


You need to train as heavy as you can most of the time, except early on in a training cycle, but it must be done very strickly and controlled.

Progressively increasing weights used in small to tiny jumps is also needed because it is difficult to gauge the stess given to a muscle effectively over a long period of time without doing this.

The average man needs to train for STRENGTH and size will come along...get that squat up to 400 for ten deep reps and you are going to have good legs.

Steroid users can train for FEEL if they wish, or for the feeling of stress on a muscle, and they will grow well and get strong as a result BUT non steroid users need to focus on strength most of the time and then size will come along well.

But I think it should be everyone goal, both non steroid user and steroid user, to add weight to the bars progressively and in small jumps...this is the best way see good mass gains IMHO.

RG

 

[Nelson Montana]

Zoomster: It's a discussion board bro.

RG: I agree with much of what you say but you're missing one very important point.

Intensity is not gauged by weight alone.

I can show you a way of doing squats with HALF the weight you normally use ad you'll be dying after 3 sets. And your legs will grow.

Working just to increase weight isn't always wise. Everyone plateaus after a while -- which brings us back to the original pont. You need to mix things up in order to get the greatest muscle building effect.

 

[Zoomster]

Ok Nelson, I deserved that one.

So lets discuss.

Much like a lot of you I have trained naturally most of my life. I am not a hardgainer, again, I am not a hardgainer.

I agree with a lot that has been stated here between you and RG.

RG, I do not believe that most people overtrain @ three days per week of intense training. I never could get the gains that I needed on less than 5 days per week. I actually do not like days off. I have tried almost every training (natural system) out there.

Anyway, I agree with Nelson when he says that intensity is not defined but increases in weight alone.

Intensity is defined many ways..

Additional Reps
Speed of the reps
partial reps
negatives
supersets
Tri sets
High reps
Get the workout done in 20 less minutes.

There are many ways to shock the muscle into growth.

Consistency is the key.

 

[Realgains]

Zoomster: It's a discussion board bro.

RG: I agree with much of what you say but you're missing one very important point.

Intensity is not gauged by weight alone.

I can show you a way of doing squats with HALF the weight you normally use ad you'll be dying after 3 sets. And your legs will grow.

Working just to increase weight isn't always wise. Everyone plateaus after a while -- which brings us back to the original pont. You need to mix things up in order to get the greatest muscle building effect.

I agree Nelson...for sure intensity isn't gauged by weight alone.

However, I think making the focus on progressive poundages used in good form, weight as the focus and not intensity as the focus, is better than intensity as a focus ...Too many focus too much on intensity and end up using roughly the same weights year after year and don't get much larger. This is because they use too much intensity and do not allow for adaptation.

ALSO, It is hard to judge progressive intensity over the weeks without increasing weights used.

Yes you can plateau, everyone always does no matter how they train, and thats why you train in cycles and purposely NOT training intensely early on in a cycle.

IMHO plateaus come more often if you ave an "intensity focus" as opposed to a weight progression focus.

Yes variation is important....thus training in cycles which varies intensity, changing up the exercises used while still keeping mainly to the compound movements, using different rep ranges etc . BUT I still think the focus needs to be more on progressive poundages used in good form on the big compound movements.

I think we are saying much the same Nelson....but I am a little more focused on progressive poundages than you may be.
I think a progressive poundage mindset is critical, especially for the natural trainee, but I don't think you do and thats okay with me.

Oh...by the way the method promoted by McRbert is quite a bit different than that promoted by Mentzer. Mentzer was intensity focused and not progressive poundage focused and he also did not believe in cycling training intensity.

I am not tooting my horn but I have trained as I discribe for 25 years...I got it from the old Iron Man magazine, as did McRobert.
At 40 years of age I can deep high bar squat 700 pounds, bench almost 450 and deadlift close to 800...and yes I am large and especially in the legs. Steroids did help but I don't think I would have gotten anywhere near my currect size and strength without training exactly like I have/did.




RG

 

[Debaser]

bump

 

[Girlwonder]

ok now i'm a little confused....

 

[Nelson Montana]

Sorry Girlwonder. We seem to have gone off on a tangent.

You're 19?

 

[Debaser]

Wow what a great way to skirt the issue.

I agree though Nelson. Let's pay more attention to the hardgainers, and less attention to the tall, lanky, <6" wrist scoliosis easy-gaining elite.

 

[casualbb]

IMHO the only way to train for the average man is very strickly and well warned up to avoid injury, infrequently, low volume, and with a decent amount of intensity on the big basic exercises especially the squat and deadlifts.

The average man needs to train for STRENGTH and size will come along

Well, myself and basically everybody else doing HST has proved false those statements. I train quite frequently and with relatively low intensity and am making amazing gains. I train for size and size is exactly what I get. It so happens that I've gained a ton of strength as a byproduct, but stuff like training to failure and tiny progressive weight increases are all methods of increasing NEURAL STRENGTH.

I propose that I can get stronger doing what I'm doing than training purely for strength. How, you ask? Say I want a year to become as strong as possible. I will train using HST for 9 months to build as much muscle as humanly possible during that time. Then I'll switch over to a strength routine to teach my CNS how to make the best use of that new muscle.

You guys need to acknowledge and learn about the differences and interactions between the nervous and muscular systems.
Strength routines will cause growth only to the extent that they allow progressive loading of the muscles.

-casualbb

 

[mt]

OK, let me see if I have this straight: Stiff leg dead lifts are really a butt exercise.

 

[collegiateLifter]

stuff like training to failure and tiny progressive weight increases are all methods of increasing NEURAL STRENGTH.

Not sure how you figure that. Power lifters who (are stronger than bbers due to better neural strenght) rarely if ever train to failure, ed coan doesn't, WSB guys don't on purpose.

Additionally, in The Science and Pracitice of Strength Training, you'll find the repitition and submaximal method, both are very similar, both are tools primarily for increasing muscle mass, and the only difference between the two is that with the repetition method, you go to failure (and thus fatiguing maximal muscle fibers-- this was the theory on why to go to failure).

 

[casualbb]

and thus fatiguing maximal muscle fibers-- this was the theory on why to go to failure

Unfortunately that's wrong in more than one sense. When you perform a lift with 85%+ of your 1RM, you recruit all fibers. Doesn't have to be to failure.

Also growth depends only in a minor sense on fatigue. It's actually dependent on the actual tension experienced by the muscle cells.

The basics:

1) The nervous system, not the muscles, fatigue. Recovery: 0-10 days depending on how extreme the failure. Mentzer confused this with muscle growth and recovery.

2) The muscles themselves experience tiny rips, dependent on how conditioned they were to the load. They immediately begin repairing. "Recovery:" 2 days maximum.

Growth under strength training systems:
Training to failure "trains" the nervous system in a sense to become better at recruiting muscle fibers. As this happens, you find you can lift more weight. That added weight causes some microdamage to the muscles, causing growth. Eventually the nervous system response has maxed out and you simply can't add weight to the bar. At this point you plateau. Now if you for some reason happened to take some time off (say, 1-2 weeks), the process would start over in a sense and you would experience more growth.

One minor problem: you find because you're training to failure all the time that it takes awhile to be able to return to the same muscle groups. You thus grow much more infrequently, shortcutting some potential gains before the nervous system has completely adapted.

Now if it's muscle growth and not nervous system coordination you're after, should you train according to 1) or 2)?

-casualbb

 

[collegiateLifter]

again, you should read Science and Practice. it lists the rep ranges 5-6RM and 10-12RM for the repitition and submaximal methods (keep in mind that while there are obviously many ways to skin a cat, this is the soviet methodology). >85% 1RM is not likely to fall in this cateogory, or may only with 5 reps. The statement in the book is that failure FATIGUES maximal muscle fibers. The book explicitly states its theory that recruiting muscle fibers does nothing toward growing them, you must exhaust them. Your statement:

"Also growth depends only in a minor sense on fatigue. It's actually dependent on the actual tension experienced by the muscle cells."

is absurd. You try to 'correct' what i present from Science and Pracitice, by telling me what 'really' happens.The fact is people at this point only hypothesize what causes hypertrophy. The exact mechanisms are not yet known-- read Supertraining, it rehashes this a lot in the beggining.

 

[casualbb]

The following things are incorrect:

The statement in the book is that failure FATIGUES maximal muscle fibers.

you must exhaust them

And yes, I AM correcting your soviet textbooks. Look at the title: The Science and Practie of STRENGTH training. These guys may be really good at that, but from what you've said it's apparent they don't know much about hypertrophy.

But that's fine; I'll tell you instead.

When you actively contract against a load (preferably in an eccentric way), damage is caused to the muscle cell membrane. This causes the release of IGF-1, mRNA, and some other stuff. These all act together to produce proteins and increase the contractile elements of the protein. At the same time, satellite cells proliferate, differentiate, and fuse with a damaged muscle fiber, increasing the number of myonuclei for growth and repair. The number of myonuclei directly determines the capacity of a muscle cell to manufacture proteins, including androgen receptors.

All of that has very little to do with training to failure. Let me quote Bryan Haycock on training to failure:

Some improvements in muscle cell function do occur even if the number of myonuclei remains the same. These won't lead to significant hypertrophy though. These improvements in muscle cell functional capacity involve ERK1/2. This is the pathway activated most when you get an intense burn and/or train to failure.

So hypertrophy occurs when you lift a load that's new to you (in the sense that you haven't lifted it for at least a few days). Not when you train to failure.

-casualbb

 

[edgecrusher]

So hypertrophy occurs when you lift a load that's new to you (in the sense that you haven't lifted it for at least a few days). Not when you train to failure.

-casualbb [/B][/QUOTE]

So basically, you feel you must keep confusing the body if you wish it to hypertrophy?

 

[casualbb]

Hmmm...
Well, not exactly.

If by "confuse the body" you mean switching exercises and set/rep schemes a lot, that might work a little, as different exercises stress different fibers and if a fiber experiences a new, higher level of stress, it will grow.

An easier way to ensure growth is progressive load. The 5x5 is a great example of this. Pick a good compound exercise, say squats. After a little time off, your muscles will be very apt to grow, even from light weights. So say you choose to do 5 reps, and your 5RM is 225. You could start at 150 for 5, and then ramp up the weights over the course of a few weeks until you hit 225. People doing HST and the 5x5 have found this provides pretty nice growth.

-casualbb

 

[Jxaxsxe530]

against conventional belief, i dont believe in changing it up too much. i do mix up the order of the exercises sometimes, but i stick to the few tried and true exercises that worked for me. but i've been working out for only 4, 5 years. maybe someday i will think differently.

 

[collegiateLifter]

The following things are incorrect:

All of that has very little to do with training to failure. Let me quote Bryan Haycock on training to failure:


So hypertrophy occurs when you lift a load that's new to you (in the sense that you haven't lifted it for at least a few days). Not when you train to failure.

-casualbb

again this is not as true as you'd like it to be. There have been studies (see Supertraining) where lifters did a) only lifts eccentricly, b)concentric portion of the excercises only c) both. There were hypertrophy gains in group a), best gains in C) and very little gains in b).

the bottom line is that there are a lot of theories out there on the exact mechanisms for hypertrophy, but no solid factual model.

 

[casualbb]

How does what you posted contradict what I said? I've seen that study by the way and it's something I accept as fact. That the eccentric portion is the chief source of growth stimulus is well-known. Now obviously we train with concentrics too; otherwise our concentric strength would not increase as quickly.

Edit: I should clarify. That I did not specify concentric or eccentric doesn't matter; that statement at the end of the quote is true either way. I just thought the whole concentric vs. eccentric thing wasn't necessarily pertinent to the debate.

-casualbb

 

[edgecrusher]

the bottom line is that there are a lot of theories out there on the exact mechanisms for hypertrophy, but no solid factual model. [/B][/QUOTE]

True, at the end of the day, the SAID principle seems to be the only thing that truly holds up time and time again.

 

[casualbb]

I disagree. A number of studies in the recent past have examined and clarified the mechanisms of hypertrophy. In a way, I shouldn't fault the soviet book for not knowing; much of the hypertrophy research occured after it was published. But that doesn't give them an excuse for presenting that false model. They should simply have admitted that they didn't know exactly what caused hypertrophy.

-casualbb

 

[collegiateLifter]

btw, the supertaining i am refering to is the 2001 edition, and although i didn't make it through it all the way, i recall in the very early part, the repitition of the fact that science does not know the cause of hypertrophy, or the specific mechanisms. while it is possible that this notion is wrong, it is very unlikely.

 

[casualbb]

I repeat: just because they don't know how it works doesn't mean that others don't.

And if it's the 2001 version, there's no excuse for them being uninformed.

Here's a basic one:
http://www.jphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/535/1/155?ijkey=GizXEp8QTdw7Y

They found, roughly, that concentric motions activated the MAPK^(erk1/2) path more. That path roughly corresponds with muscle tissue metabolic fatigue, such as the lactic acid burn experienced doing a ton of reps. This is confirmed by real-world experience; people don't grow much of off concentric-only exercise.

Eccentrics stimulate the MAPK^(p38) pathway, the one that results in sarcomere hypertrophy, an increase in the number of contractile elements. IE it increases strength by hypertrophy. This also is confirmed by real-world experience; people will grow tons off of eccentric-only stuff.

Here's a picture
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=13;t=12

I couldn't figure out how to upload it here, so the picture is halfway down the page.

I do concede, we don't know all the hypertrophy mechanisms. All the studies I looked at in the formulation of this post say, somewhere in the abstract, "The exact mechanisms of hypertrophy are as of yet unknown. We sought to investigate..." But to say we don't know anything isn't correct either. What we know is like the first few tiers of a giant outline detailing muscle hypertrophy. What's happening right now are studies that are trying to fill out the sub-branches of that outline.

-casualbb

 

[collegiateLifter]

but we don't know the real specifics of why/how, which are neccessary imo to use much science to develop a system for muscle buiding.

 

[casualbb]

Sure. Heck, when it all boils down to it, the reason I like HST isn't because some guy said "look at the cells, dude, THE CELLS!" It's the gains.

-casualbb

 

[emptywallet]

That ain't it.

The reason you're weaker is the reason it's effective.

When you stick with one exercise, the body adapts and becomes more efficient at performing it. That's why if you want to bench more weight, you practice benching, not developing the pecs. In order for a muscle to grow it must work harder, not easier.

You need to choose whether you want to be strong or muscular. Sure, when you get muscular you get stronger and when you get stronger you get more muscular, but they're side effects of each other. It's possible to be good at one and not very good at the other.

The muscle doesn't care what the weight is. It only knows stress.

(BTW: Lot's of people will disagree with this, but they're wrong).

I kinda grasp on what your saying. Can you elaborate more? In any case, if this is what your opinion is, I'd like to see the kind of training you advocate.