They used to say, in the early 70’s, there are two types of guys who can train; you have a guy who reacts to volume, and a guy who reacts to intensity. And then, Anatoly Bondarchuk, who used to coach elite level hammer throwers, in fact had Olympic Gold medalists for at least 20 years in a row, said, no, there are three types of athletes: volume, intensity and then there’s a variation type of guy who responds to changing things around. His training system produced the top 6 hammer throwers of all time.
And me, who’s trained people from biathlons to bobsleds, what I’ve found is that there are five types of people, and this is where it ties into Chinese medicine. There are people who need extremely high volume, and even though it sounds paradoxical, they can handle high intensity at the same time, so the average guy like that, could handle 10 sets of 3, and every set of 3 would be at 90% of 1RM. That’s what we call the "Fire" type. These are guys like Adam Nelson who would be very good at the shot put.
The next element is the Wood guy who needs to train high intensity, but doesn’t tolerate volume really well. This is a guy who loved the first two workouts he did with me, but then complained of achy joints, fatigue, mono, etc. after the third. What we do know is to identify the type of person they are, and change their loading parameters before they get overtrained.
Then there’s a type that we call a whore type, that basically....
TC: Excuse me. What do you call him?
CP: Whore (laughing)
TC: Is that one of the Chinese elements?
CP: No, no, basically, he can do anything; a guy who can do high volume–you can beat the hell out of him with volume for 3 weeks, and then beat the hell out of him with intensity for 3 weeks. And the other two elements are wimps and they’re not worth training. I should not call them that, but they are not suited for power sports; they’re suited for swimming, etc. They have a very low tolerance for strength training. For most of the readers of T-Nation, they fall within the first three types.
We can figure all this out with a computer. For example, we have a guy who is 242, 17% body fat, football player, and once we figured out what he was, he showed up at training camp at 266 at 6% body fat. And that’s the first time he’s gotten those results. All his teammates were asking him if he were training for the Mr. Olympia, blah, blah, blah.
And actually he had low Testosterone. The way we trained that guy was one workout was at 100% of volume; the second workout was 80% of volume–reducing the number of sets but increasing the intensity–and the 3rd workout, 40% of volume. So for this guy, only two workouts out of three are somewhat hard.
----------------------------------
There are 3 main factors that determine this:
A: neural factors (muscular recruitment, ability to generate intensiveness)
B: metabolic and structural factors (# of muscle fibers, bone lengths, muscle lengths, ability to put tension on a muscle)
C: hormonal factors (androgen sensitivity, stress hormone levels, ability to quickly store glycogen, ability to repartition nutrients)
Each ranking can be given a ranking of good or poor.
The last 2 types he's referring to have shitty muscular recruitment capacity but still take a long time for their nervous systems to recover. They have shitty structural factors which makes it hard for them to put tension on a muscle rather the joints tend to take the stress. They have small muscle bellies with a small # of total muscle cells per cross section area. They also have shitty androgen sensitivity, elevated stress hormones, and shitty abilities to both store glycogen and repartition nutrients.
The whore would be the guy who is complete opposite particularly with regards to metabolic and hormonal factors.....there woudl be quite a bit of variability in the nervous system proficiency.
The intensity low volume guy is the guy with excellent neural factors yet who's hormonal factors may not be so great.
The volume guy is the guy with excellent hormonal factors, poor neural factors, and variable metabolic and structural factors.