Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Training Theory by AnimalMass, AngelFace, And JohnSmith

AnimalMass1

New member
...Right then I've basically decided to create this thread pretty much as a resource on training theory...What I intend to do is make this thread kinda like a text book so that anyone can refer to it if they need to know something...this will take me a while to complete so I am gonna do it in installments like small chapters...If the thread looks like its gonna disappear cuz I havent posted can you please bump it to keep the sucka active?... ...Why am I doing this? well for 2 reasons really...the first is so that everyone out there has access to theories that they may not neccessarily be familiar with...therefore I hope everyone will learn something from this thread or at least it will jog their memories and make you think a little... Plus I am getting complacent so this will hopefully serve as a refresher for myself and get me thinking again!... ...I will try to make it as readable as I can so its not gonna be mega scientific or complex because I dont have the resources...all information that I will post...I will backup with literature when the thread is completed....Its not gonna be realy long just enough to present you with some good basic information and hopefully introduce you all to training theory so that you can apply it to yourself... If anyone has got anything to add please feel free to do so...


BASIC CONCEPTS:
...This first few parts will deal with a few basic theories and will be somewhat introductory. ...ADAPTATION.. Adaptation is both the primary target of training in general and one of the most important laws that governs the way we train. A simple definition of adaptation would be adjustment to environment. Consequently when the environment is subject to change so too would be the object. The primary objective in training is to incite explicit adaptations to increase performance. Consequenlty it can be seen that the application of a carefully contrived training program is imperitive. For adaptation to occur then the stimulus for the adaptation has to be at a greater level than the current standing. To increase the magnitude manipulating the intensity, volume and modality is often employed. Consequnetly if the same stimulus is being presented over a long period of time then once intial adaptations have occured there will be no more changes thus a plateau forms. Training loads are often categorized into three areas according to the 'magnitude' that they correspond to ... ...The first would be a stimulating magnitude...here the training load is above the habitual level... ...The second is retaining...this is where the level is neutral and thus maintained... ...The third is thus detraining...here the magnitude is beneath the habitual level and thus a decline in performance is observed. Essentially for any positive adaptation to occur then OVERLOAD must be created. In the absence of overload typically performance will either be maintined for a period of time or decrease. This is governed by accomodation. ACCOMODATION is in essence a decrease in response observed to a continual stimulus. Thus interms of training continual stimulus results in a loss of reponse. Resulting in a plateau, training thus becomes redundant. This concept neccessitates the need to present yourslef with variety. It is unwise to present yourself with the same stimulus for a long period of time. Avoidance of the accomodation effect can be achievd by the simple application of variety achieved via quantitaive (load, volume intensity etc)and qualitative (types of exercises performed) measures. Adaptation to training stimulus is specific. For a particular training goal to be observed the stimulus (training) has to be specific to the goal. Consequently it would be unwise for an olympic weightlifter to train like an endurance athlete and vice versa. SPECIFICITY is the application of the training stimulus to the nature of the intended goal. Therefore if an individual wanted to increase his benchpressing ability it woudl be wise to train the muscles resposibles for the movement.... ...


Adaptations as response to training part1:...
...Adaptations as a response to the training stimulus can be classified as either Central (CNS)and peripheral (pertaining to the muscle). The importance of the central nervous system cannot be underestimated. to appreciate the adaptations that occur centrally we must first be aware of how these central factors work. Typically central factors fall into two distinct categories. The first is intramuscular coordination..this relates to which the muscle fibres can be activated voluntarily. Intermuscular coordination is the coordinated innervation of appropriate muscell groups and is thus skill related. Motor units are the essential foundations of the motor system. Typically they consist of motoneurons, axons, motor endplates, and muscle fibres activated by a motor neuron. Motor units are generally classified into to groups based on their contractile characteristics. Slow motor units are typically used for prolonged use at low intensities, they consist of small low threshold motor neurons axos with low conduction frequencies and slow twitch muscle fibres. Consequently fast motor units are the antithesis of slow motor units. They will consist of a large high threshold motor neuron, an axon with a high conduction velocity and fast twitch muscle fibres. the activation of a motor unit is solicited by an all or nothing law. basically this dictates that a motor unit either fires or it doesnt. Consequently there is no alteration in the inetnisty of firing, they either fire or they dont. the Central nervous system governs muscle force via three methods...RECRUITMENT, RATE CODING and SYNCHRONIZATION. The recruitment pattern of the motor units during a voluntary contraction is dependant on the size of the motor neurons (Size principle). the motorneurons with the lowest firing threshold (smaller)are recruited first, conseqnelty the more the intensity increases the larger forces neccessary to generate are done so via increasing the recruitment of the larger motorneurons. Consequently no matter what the intensity of exercise slow twich fibres will be recruited to some extent. The achieving of full motor unit activation is deemed particularly difficult thus untrained individuals cannot recruit all their motor units. one of the primary adaptations that occurs as aresponse to weight training is an increase in the ability to recruit Motor units. thus trained individual have an increased propensity for motor unit activation. RATE CODING is the discharge frequency of the motorneurons. With an increase in force needed, firing rate will increase to accomodate. Synchronisation...motor units work in harmony to achieve a fluid movemnt pattern. Within the muscle there are specific inhibitory mechanisms that inhibit the amount of force that can be generated. These are known as Golgi tendon organs and Renshaw cells. It is common in life or death situation for a completely untrained individual to be able to produce massive amounts of force...this is most likely due to an inactivation of these inhibitory mechanisms. It has been shown that with strength training a reuction in neural inhibition can occur increasing the amount of strength that can be generated due to an increase in the recruitable 'motorneron pool'. Exercise is a highly skillful sequence that requires the complex coordination of several muscel groups (intermuscular coordination). Consequently motor learning or the acquisition of skillshould be a primary training objective. Dramatic strength increases in beginners is oftem the result of skill acquisition, consequently this type of adaptaion has little cross over benefit. Next time I will concntrate on the peripheral adaptations and consequently the theories of muscular growth.


Adaptations part 2 – peripheral:
O.K in the last post I presented a few of the central adaptations that can occur. These adaptations are repsonsible for the observation of strength increases without hypertophy. Consequently for the first few weeks of training when initial increases in strength are observed, the strength increases are deemed to be the result of neuromuscular efficiency.
...Peripheral adaptations, this is the area that we as bodybuilders will be most concerned with. Again I will introduce a few concepts. I will briefly discuss hypertrophy and hyperplasia. For those that dont have an understanding of physiology I will briefly explain a few basic concepts. Again I will keep it pretty simple as I dont want to blind everyone with science.

Skeletal muscles consist of many many fibres. these are long and cylindrical in shape they are the cells. Each of the fibres is made up of myofibrils, which are made up of sarcomeres. These sarcomeres are made up of both thick (myosin)and thin filaments(actin). The myosinf filaments have small crossbridges projecting outwards on the end of these protrusions is the myosin head.
Muscle contraction (known as the sliding filament theory) is the result of the myosin and actin filaments sliding across each other. This is because the myosin heads attach the actin and basically pull the filamnts over each other. This results in a shortening of the sarcomere. So everytime you contract a muscle this is what happens, it shortens because the filaments slide. Hence a muscle can only pull, it cannot push. Muscles with longer sarcomeres (filaments) generally can exert a greater force because they have more room to overlap. All sarcomeres of the myofibrils exert the same amount of force, they act in a linear fashion.

The force produced by a muscle fibre is dependant on the number of actin and myosin filaments and thus the number of myofibrils. One of the main adaptations of training is an increased number of myofibrils per muscle fibre, and an increase in the density and size of the filaments. This will result in an increase in the cross sectional area (size) of a muscle. Consequently from this assertion it can be seen why a bigger muscle is potentially a stronger muscle.

muscle force is dependant on the number of muscle fibres, cross sectional area of the fibres and thus size.
Increase in muscle size is called muscle hypertophy and is caused by either an increased number of motor fibre (fibre hyperplasia) or an increase in the cross sectional area of a muscle fibre(fibre hypertophy).

Here we will deal with two types of fibre hypertophy, myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic. Sarcoplasmic hypertophy is the increase in size of the sarcoplasm, typically filament density will decrease with sarcoplasmic hypertophy, so that it is possible for a fibre CSA to increase without increases in strength. Myopfibrillar hypertophy is an enlargement of the muscle fibre because more myofibrils are formed, consequently it is usually followed by an increase in filament density and thus strength increases.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is associated with an increase in noncontractile tissues, which is why filamnt density decreases. Myofibrillar hypertophy typically results in an increase in contractile tissues hence the increase in density and strength.
There are many theories as to how weight training results in hpertophy, the most widely accpeted theory is that of the breakdown and build up theory.

This theory in its most basic form speculates that all energy during exhaustive weigh training is spent on the training itself resulting in the creation of a catabolic state. Consequently a deficit forms during training where more amino acids are being broken down than synthesized. After training protein synthesis is increased massively both post workout and up till the next session. Protein synthesis will then drop again during training. The purported increase in muscle size is due to the fluctuation of protein synthesis which is alleged to result in SUPERCOMPENSATION of protein and thus hypertophy. This alone neccesitates the need for more protein in the diet (so fuck off RDAs etc!).

I wont cover the hormonal affects of training unless you want me to as some of you will probably want to commit suicide due to boredom!

Phewwwwww, got that (I hope so) I am sure that what I probably just typed (very badly I am sure as per usual!) will make no sense whatsoever so I apologise for how this thread will read...not exactly enthralling stuff i know but it will get much better I promise!
next time we shall cover SUPERCOMPENSATION amoungst a few other things...

Basic Training theories:

...After a couple of suggestions I have had I will try my best to keep things easy reading...today's topic is really straightforward...regarding what I have spoke about previously I will edit it and make it more readable...plus I may have to add quite a bit more physiological stuff and biochemistry depending on how the thread evolves...

...Anyway SUPERCOMPENSATION...this is a really basic and somewhat obvious concept that for a while was accepted quite widely...however nowadays it is deemed a bit too simplistic. This theory is based on the assumption that training will deplete certain substances, obvious examples would be glycogen...One theory about hypertophy is that training acts catabolically. The training serves as a stimulus, after the training there is the neccessary rest period. After the rest period it is puported that the appropriate substance concentration will increase to a level beyond the initial point. Simple really! Now to ensure that this would happen rest periods would have to be optimal. optimal is an expression used alot in science, which basically means desirable. If the rest period was too short then the individual would not be completely recovered and as such the training would deplete the substance even more which over a period of time would result in overtraining and a loss of performance ie: training 4 times a day!. If the rest interval was too long then the training would lose its stimulus property, the individual would recover completely and lose the window of oppurtinutity to provide the stimulus again. So ultimately the individual would never improve...ie if yu trained once every 2-3 weeks, you simply would not improve. If the interval is optimal then improvemnts surely follow.

This theory is then dependant on two factors really: Optimal rest interval, Optimal load selection. With regards to loads, the load has to be such so that it stimulates optimally, it cannot be too high or low. Typically this theory is represented on a wave like diagram (I will link these asap.). An obvious example of the supercompensation theory is carb loading. With carb loading for a period of time you deplete the muscle stores, which would results in a massive drop in CHO levels, after this occurs an individual would overfeed with an abundance of carbs, the body is alleged then to store more carbs than the pre depletion level within the muscle tissue resulting in a greater concentration of carbs. This is often applied to more than gylcogen, training is alleged to cause a similar repsonse to protein synthesis, hence the 'break down and build up' theory. I will post later on with regards to a more complex approach!.

Basic Training theories:

I tried linking this but it wouldnt work properly...maybe something to do with my lack of html skills...
http://www.sportislife.com/effects.htm
Ignore the text on this if you want..the first diagram is the overload diagram...note the starting point...and the window of opputinity aka the period of supercompensation... ...the second diagram is the effects of repeated bouts of supercompenation which results in an increased starting threshold an each successive session (does that make sense?)....anyway the diagrams will show it better

Two Factor Theory:

For this I will be refering to 'the science and practise of strength training' by Vladimir Zatsiorky as mentioned by John earlier...I forgot how good this book is and I recommend that anyone interested in this area to buy it...be warned though if you think that what I say is confucing just wait.... ...Two factor theory, also called Fitness fatigue theory is somewhat more complex than supercompensation theory. This theory is entirely dependant on one thing Zatsiorsky referes to it as preparedness...I prefer base conditioning. This preparedness or condition is comprised of two componants: slow changing and fast changing. Zatsiorsky uses the example of fitness as a slow changing componant of preparedness. This is because over the short term fitness does not fluctuate often, however external factors can affect it ie: illness. Zatsiorsky describes prepardness as a set of 'latent charcteristics' (he means that they exist but are dependantly intangible)...these charcteristics can only be measured or quantified at certain times. Sounds quite complex but you will grasp it soon!... ...This theory works similar to an equillibrium, training will have an immediate affect (similar to supercompensation) that is the combination of fatigue and gain. So after a workout, because of the stimulus that it provides preparedness or conditioning increases (gain) but at the same time will decrease due to fatigue from the training. Hopefully things now will start to make sense.

So, the outcome of the training session is the result of both the positive and negative consequences of the training session. These two outcomes depend on time as does the one factor theory (supercompensation). By striking the correct balance, fatigue should be large in extent but short in how long it lasts. Gain on the other hand should be moderate however is longer in duration. Typically the relationship is 1:3, if fatigue lasts x amount of time then gain lasts 3x amount of time.

...From these two theories that have been introduced you should all now be able to see that the most importnat factor that they introduce is timing! with the supercompensation theory it is preferable for the next workout to fall in the supercompensation period. With the fitness-fatigue theory timing is best if the proceeding workout takes place when all the negative consequneces (fatigue) of training are diminsihed but the positive (gain) is still apparent. When I find a site with the neccessary diagram I will try to link it!

Johnsmith’s comments:

RE: Two Factor Theory

hate to butt in here, but let me explain what i think are the important things about these theories...
given the one factor theory, which looks at physical ability as, or course, one factor, you are left with the problem of timing workouts to correspond to the supercompensation wave... anything sooner or later will lead to a useless workout.
given the two factor theory, which seperates physical fitness or prepardness and fatigue, you see that the timing of individual workouts it is unimportant to long term gains... in other words regardless of whether or not fatigue is or is not present, fitness can still be increased...

what is important to note is that there is almost universal agreement amoung scientists and athletes and coaches in all sports EXCEPT bodybuilding that the two factor theory is correct and the single factor theory is not correct and is in fact suitable only for beginners to follow when planning training.
it is also important to note that most athletes in most sports are experiencing some level of constant fatigue ALWAYS, except for maybe a couple of weekends a year, when they are peaking. training takes place daily against a backdrop of fatigue.

Angel Face’s Response:

RE: RE: Two Factor Theory

I am glad you brought this up John, thanks...
...with regards to fatigue yes it is always there only it rises and falls depending on rest...the accumulation of stresses induced by training and other variables contribut to fatigue...fatigue has a mounting effect wherein it can slowly build up and build up until OTS (over training syndrome) is achieved...this is one of the many major fundamental reasonings for the peaking phase of periodisation. And most probably Mike Mentzer's arguments for HIT...so eventially training can become counterproductive.

...as to why the 2 factor theory is not accepted in BBing I dont know why...do you John? or anyone else for that matter?...
Intensity:

...This is a bigee and therefore I wil dedicate a few posts to this...cheers for the positive response fellas I really appreciate it...John, anytime you've got soemthing to add go right ahead mate...I was hoping that you would contribute to this thread...I kinda feel like training methods are undervalued hence one of the reasons for me starting this thread.

...Intensity is a term that is used interchangeably with several concepts...by this I mean that there are several different ways of interpreting what constitutes intensity...Often these can be conflicting but in essence it relates to how hard one is performing...Right then intensity can be quantified via 4 (usually) criterion assessments: intensity as a percntage of 1 RM...in Sports sci circles this is the most common measurement of intensity with regards to strength training (for aerobic type work intensity is usually measured via %age of max heart rate)...consequently the closer you are to you 1 Rm in a particular exercise the higher intensiy that you are working at...the number of sets performed per hour, this obviuosley correlated to rest intervals, the shorter the rest interval the more sets that can be performed and thus the higher intensity...repetitions (this is conditional really as are all the measures of intensity!)...this general rule of thumb dictates that the closer you work to failure the higher intensity (I will address failure several times later on!) you are working at example: if you can perform 10 reps with x amount of weight performing 8 reps is more intense than performing 5...the final measurement is not often employed in the western world and really is only applicable to competetive athletes in strength sports not BBers...this is similar to the 1 rm intensity measure...this measure of intensity is expressed as a %age of highest attained weight or PB...this differentiates between training weight and competition weights...external variables such as crowd reaction, motivating factors etc etc can significantly (I dont use the word significantly lightly..I am currently using it in the scientific sense of the term!)affect the amount of weight lifted...anyone familar with the sports psychology term 'flow' or the 'zone' will understand that during competition there are unexplainable periods wherein an athltes performs their best above any training measure (whether it be weight lifted or time ran etc etc, everything comes together effortlessly) hence this intensity measure quantifies intensity as a %age of competiton weight...this is usually done via heart rate...if an individual elicits a particularly elevated HR prior to a lift then that lift is beyond what can be lifted during training...This was originally a soviet technique (I think, dont quote me on that)...so what I am trying to say is there are 2 intensities one is with the presence of stress (eustress is a positive stress that is beneficial) and without stress...I wont cover this method (thank god i will be explaining it forever! unless some of the powerlifters would want me too, let me know if your interested!)...With regards to the %age of 1 Rm it is important to note that every idividual is different depending on many factors such as neural efficiency, fibre ratio and so on...basically if two atrhletes can bench 300lbs for 1 RM...they wont neccesarilt be able to perform 10 reps with same amount of weight.

...I will cover intensity a lot more very soon!...I will adress training to failure, optimal rep ranges for goals, TUT (time under tension!)submaximal training and HIT (whats the betting that this causes controversey)...also I am gonna apologise in advance as i will be editing the physio. stuff and including more scientifc terms and jargon...however its essential that you understand it before we continue!.

Intensity cont.:

Intensity again, as mentioned this is a V. large area so I will be dealing with it several more times...this pretty much goes hand in hand with training to failure and as this area has sparked some recent discussions I will be covering this area several times, from a couple of different view points...so what is said is not always gospel or an exact...

...First off training with maximal weights...O>k before I delve into this I want you to remember rate coding - smallest MUs first etc..well unless a maximal load is lifted then only a portion of Motor Units are utilised...Your body will only innervate the amount of Motor units that are neccessary to perform the task!

...Back to Max weights, essentially gains elicited from max weight are the result of the two previuos theories of neural adaptation: intermuscular coordination and intramuscular coordination. Therefore the majority of gains are not related to muscle growth but neural efficiency...again I ask you to remeber what was mentioned previuosly about hypertrophy in paticular the breakdown build up theory of protein catabolism (training induces catabolism rest and recovery plus adaquate protein intake induces supercompensation of protein and thus muscle growth takes place) well because not enough WORK is performed when using max weights (work = Force x Time, force = mass x acceleration)to potentiate the neccessary muscle catabolism so that the anabolism can take place...

...Training to failure via repeated subamaximal reps...this process of training poetentiates differnet effects. Essentially as more work is peformed in conjunction with rate coding, more motor units are recruited to perform the set, again due to the fact that more work is performed catabolism is markedly higher than training with maximal weights....however strength gain is not the same as the most allegidle important reps are performed at the end of set approaching failure...this is because the higher threshold fatigueing motor units are recruited and fatigued...thus causing the neccessary training effect however as they are recruited while 'semi fatigued' the training effect is not as significant on these motor units in comparison with max weights.

...training submaximally from what has been mentioned above it would seem fair to assume that this type of training would be pretty useless unless it is performed to failure...however the difference between taking a set to failure or to 1 or even 2 reps before failure will occur seems negligible..plus by ,manipulating rest intervals shortening the amount of rest inbetween consecutibe sets intensity is increased or by increaseing the amount of time it takes to perform the repetition...training to the exact moment of failure is not neccessarily imperative...
So then it would appear that a big muscle isnt a strong muscle well this is inaccurate, again nerual factors offer the reasoning...again I will use rate coding it is extremely difficult to increase the strength of slow motor units, hypertophy mainly occurs in the type 2a muscle fibres (fast/intermediary fibres), consequently there is a correlation between the size of a fast twitch muscle fibre and strength because the main training adaptations occur in that muscle fibre type(s)...refering back to what was said previoulsy about hypertophy due to increased contrcatile proteins increases strength and muscle size....again this will be discussed later.

...Next time I will present a different view on training to failure.
Intensity and Failure:
Now this is where we start to get to the nitty gritty, but first I will have to cover some background stuff on fatigue...for this I am assuming that you have knoweldge of how energy is formed...if not let me know and I will post some info...
ATP/Pc factors: Intramuscular levels of ATP fall rapidly during exercise...this is thought to be one of the major factors in fatigue...

Creatine Phosphate levels fall rapidly at the onset of exercise, after a period of roughly 30 secs levels may be as low as 5% of the prexercise concentration. Consequenlty there wont be optimal levels of CP to replenish ATP stores.
Creatine Phosphate fuels the ADP/ ATP conversion, as levels of CP decline levels of ATP get depleted.
The ATP/PC system fuels the first few seconds of exercise...after which anaerobic glycolysis takes place... a buy product of glycolysis is Lactic acid, which casues a build-up in the muscle cells of Hydrogen ions (H+) raising the p.H.... Which affects the process that exposes actin cross-bridging sites (troponin) and permit muscle contraction. ATP formation is also affected.
calcium ions (Ca++) are released from the sarcoplasmic reticulum by the T tubules during muscle contraction and returned by the Ca-Pump.

Reduced sarcoplasmic Ca++ concentrations has been linked to fatigue. Declines in force that can be produced have been linked to declined levels of CA++ (Calcium ions). This is because decreased Ca++ released reduces the number of actin/myosin cross-bridges that can be formed. This is most likely to be due to impairement of the T-tubule. While exercising potassium ions (K+)build up in the T-tubules, this is due to the inability of the Na+K+ ATPase (breaks down ATP) Pump (sodium, potassium atpase pump) to maintain the proper Na+/K+ balance at the T-tubules. This affects the conduction of the action potential (these cause movement to occur...like an electrical impulse) to the sarcoplasmic reticulum, consequently Ca++ release is inhibited affecting one's capacity to contract a muscle. lactic acid again builds yup here and once again intracellular H+ concentrations increase, this then slows the uptake of Ca++ by the sarcoplasmic reticulum, because the H+ affects the pump. Therefore there is a marked reduction in levels of Ca++

As should be obviuos ATP is broken and provides the energy for contraction (into ADP and Pi)this inorganic phosphate (Pi) builds up. Increased Pi levels are thought to inhibit further cross-bridges being formed between the filaments. As ATP is used to fuel the muscle contraction, Pi is released from the myosin head. Increased concentrations of Pi affects this from happening.
Intensity and Failure

That being said I can now continue...HIT popularized by Mike mentzer (hope this doesnt open up the proverbial can of worms!)is based on the premise that If you don't take your sets to failure, then you are not presenting your body with the stimulus to adapt because you can perform the appropriate amount of reps. Therefore as you take your reps to failure, you are presenting the stimulus by forcing your body to cope with something that it cannot do (remeber the original post!). Consequently you adapt because you have forced yourself to do something that it simply cannot do...seems logical and simple right! But you have to ask yourself, why are so many powerlifters muscular if they dont train to failure? as with olympic lifters!

...I take you back to the theory of rate coding..essentially you fail in an exercise because there are not sufficiently rested muscle fibres to perform the task...at the end of the set the only fibres that arent fatigued are the low threshold high endurance motor units..which dont have the neccessary force producing capabilities to perform the work.

I take you back now to the theory of supercompensation and the subesequent breakdown and buildup theory that dictates that muscle damage (catabolism) has to occur for the increase in proetin synthesis to occur!...

...Research has shown that the most muscle damage occurs during the negative paotion of the exercise (sarcomere popping!)...this is because less muscle fibres are recruited to perform the eccentric movemnt resulting in a greater stress on those fibres...consequently by increasing the time that the muscle fibres are under tension (most tension is generated during -ve portion) there in theory is a better stimulus for muscle growth! ... from this it seems that more tension can be generated by taking a set to failure than stopping short because it would take longer to perform! keep this in mind!

...Back to rate coding (seems pretty important doesnt it?) as the moment of failure draws closer the CNS will innervate all the motor units it can to perform the reps and fire them as often as it can...however as fatigue sets in there is a reduction in firing frequency (up to around 70-80% I think!), consequently the rate of twitching is not high enough to continue the exercise...thus failure occurs.

...back to neural factors...as a nueron fires it has to release the neurotransmitter Acetyl Choline so that the message can be carried...as mentioned previoulsy the electrical current is passed down the axon due to the na+ and K+ (when people refer to electrolites in sports drinks like gatorad, lucozade, these is what they are refering to), and the K+ Na+ atp ase pump... as failure approaches (lack of firing) the electrolites become taxed...as failure occurs these are virtually depleted...it is speculated that another of the major factors in fatigue is the inability of the motor neurons to create and release acetylcholine (ACh) fast enough so that transmission of the action potential can be maintained from the neron to the muscle...

It can be said that ability to produce force is dependant on power speed and frequency of the 'electrical impulse elicited by the CNS to contract a muscle...as fatigue develops there is a mared decrease in the speed of these signals, as this occurs inhibitory mechanisms (mentioned previuos) stop further contrcations occuring....

...However due to emotional factors lke psyching oneself up it is possible to extend the time until these inhibitory mechanisms take effect(fight or flight syndrome)...there is a ditinct relationship between this and catecholamine levels...

...Therfore I hope that you can see that failure may not occur due to the peripheral (muscle) factors but the Central ones...failure may not be due to muscular fatigue but neural inhibition...the CNS does this for one simple reason: SO THAT IT CAN REST AND RECOVER!

...If we are to believe the supercompensation theory muscle fibers need to produce appropriate tension for a long enough period of time to cause damage breakdown...this has the effect of growth factors to be released in the cells Calcium levels within the cell must increase toperpetuate both Catabolism and the required anabolic effect. Growth stimuli may also be provided by the fatigue metabolites building up (phosphate and hydrogen ions) due to elevated levels of lactic acid . Please not that any of these reactions occurs because of muscular failure!
It may become evident that failure is actaully detrimental (note to John this would neccessiate the two factor theory, that has always been rejected by bodybuilders) because too much stress occurs (especially if inadequate rest intervals are used)...this would facilitate the increasing levels of fatigue resulting in a faster establishment of the Overtraining syndrome!
Probably the main point to take away from this is intensity and rest should be monitored so to prevent the build up of fatigue and OTS

...Hope that wasnt too heavy I am drawing to a close soon on this thread...It could keep going on forever...but I hope that at least its made at least one person sit up and think about how they train and that its not as simple as going into the gym and picking up a few pieces of iron a few times....I hope you can bump this thread to keep it active so that other people get to read it!

I'll restart then...
O.k Here I go again..I never realised that I was in demand LOL!!!
Some more info to chew over....I'll start with some basic scientifically accpeted (I dont say proven becuase in science nothing is ever reall solid fact!!!)...I'll update as often as possible so I wont force a load of info down your throat on each post!!
This will all relate to hypertophy...yeah the nitty gritty!!!
factors affecting hypertophy!!!

...It seems pretty much solid that hypertophy is a form of supercompensation as a result of the stimulus thats placed on the musculature...theres like a million refernces for this...
I'll start with a few interesting facts that may make you sit up and think a bit: during the average day the body turnsover (synthesis etc) 3-4 grmas of protein per KG of BW (Check out work by Balolgopal - sp??? and El-Khoury). Also, in the 'average' person muscle weighs 40-45% of BW, (skeletal muscle = 50% of total protein)...Muslce is made up of water and proteins in a ratio of around 4:1, 10kg of muscle = around 2kg of protein!!!!!!!
Right then, if hypertophy is the response to stimuli, well this is based on supercompensation as I maentioned a while back. If thats the case then the growth is response to muscle breakdown/damage...when a muscle fibe is overloaded it gets damaged particulalry during eccentric contrcations...Muscle damage is massively mis understood, so I will cover it in a bit of detail...

...the major molecular chnages that occur are purported to be due to eccentric contractions (Protein syntheses etc)...
MUSCLE DAMAGE high tensile stress (as in eccentrcics) causes the weak sarcomeres to pop, also leads to the adjacent sarcomeres to pop...however this also affects the fibres metabolically: 1)Damages Sarcoplasmic Reticulum, which may result in a loss of Calcium Iron homestasis (Calcium helps fuel contrcations) and may result in a loss of muscle fibres-yikes

2) Streaming, broadening and total disruption of the z bands

3) increase in temoperature of the muscle disrupting protein structures
Delayed onset muscle soreness... Causes: 1) connective tissue damage, 2) muscle fibre shortening 3)Oedema Lasts - 24-48 hrs post exercise, fully disappears by day 7
FORCE LOSS (of interest to the power guys!!!) for 3 days after intense ex. there is an immediate devrease in max muscle force, why??? well then: contractile element damage, altertaion in the sarcomere lengths (results in less x bridges that can be formed) 3) Psychological effect of pain and soreness...
This may not seem relevant to you at first but this pretty much substantiates that intensity has to be monitored, you cant just go in an train intense...plus it also makes me suspect that muscle growth isnt just a result of increaased protein synthesis etc...
Ill leave this post here and continue on a new one...it gets more physiological!!!

I'll restart then 2...

The responses from training are specific to the type of training performed hence the specificity principle...
The adaptation of muscle dictates that specific proteins are degraded and synthesised...myofibrillar proteins increase qite largely, mitochondrial proteins increase with endurance training!!! consequently the increase in intracellular aminos, particularly myofibrillar with protein degredation helps to replace the high turnover...

....Also, there maybe a possible migration of the ribosomes to the areas that are most affected by the tyoe or training performed (to utilse the degared proteins)...
applications...
Well then if we are to use the info posted we can see that hypertophy is the result of poetine synthesis increases as a result of protein degredation...which is caused by muscle damage...the most muscle is damaged during eccentric exercise (more tension generated - because less motor unites are used so there is greater stress ion the individual fibres)...stretching has indeed been shown to help increae hypertophy... consequently, for short term succes then there must be sufficiebt stretch in the contrcatile elements (for facilitation of muscle damamge), and tension...consequenlty, there should be an emphasis on range of motion (to ensure stretch) and eccentric contrcation (for tension)for protein sunthesis ....

Higher volumes of work appear to elicuit the best results (rep ranges of 5-8 and 10-12), for multiple sets....refer to the intensity posts for a review on optimal intenisty...
I will be covering the practical side to a geater extent, this is just a taster!!! any questions...feel free to ask.

JohnSmith’s response:

"concerning the single and dual factor training theories you asked about earlier... i dont think the bodybuilding community has altogether ignored the latter... in fact i think that the HST that millard has talked about seems to be taking advantage of this principle.

basically the most real-world and practical advice i can give you concerning the dual factor theory is this.

instead of thinking of each workout as one seperate "fatigueing" session, followed by a seperate "recovery" session of a day or two of rest... begin thinking in terms of weeks. in other words, you have one, or two or even three weeks which are "fatigueing" in other words you think of this time period just the same way as some people think of one workout. you accumulate fatigue the whole time, you never completely recover. then you have another time period of recovery. this is another one, two or three weeks in which you train with reduced frequency, volume, or intensity and allow recovery to take place. personally i favor keeping intensity high, drastically lowering volume, and slightly lowering frequency. in any event the overall training stress is lower.
so you have say two 3 week periods which you approach like you would have approached two days, one a workout day and one a rest day.

now, of course in programming for elite athletes it gets much more complicated than thsi. you may also have a 6 month "overload" period, during which you have a series of 5 week periods each consisting of 3 weeks of hard work and 2 weeks of lower stress training. then you may have another 3 or 4 month period of "recovery" consisting of 1 week of "loading" or hard work, then 1 or 2 weeks of reduced training.
all this may be superimposed upon 3 years of slightly harder overall work, in other words slightly higher volume overall... then 1 year of slightly lower volume. this fits into the fact that the olympics are every 4 years and athletes want to hit their highest performance at the olympics.

the greeks do 3 loading weeks followed by 1 unloading week (approx 12 workouts a week during loading, and 9 workouts a week during unloading, also all weights are lowered by about 10kilos during the unloading week)... these are "loading" months, then every 4th month is an "unloading" month consisting of only 1 loading week and 3 unloading weeks. close to a big competition like the olympics... they switch to alternating weeks, 1 loading week followed by 1 unloading week.

however, to actually program sets and reps... this is very individual. what is unloading to me may be highly stressfull to you. but this is how training is programmed for the majority of athlets in sports other than BB and powerlifting. fatigue is gradually accumulated and then gradually disipated...
i would encourage you or anyone else to take a look at the HST training protocol... as it is the first BB specific program i have ever seen that seems to be set up on these principles. people doing it seem to be making gains, so i assume it is the correct volume for a majority of bbers... of course individual adjustment is usually required with programs like this.

personally... when adjusting volume for individuals i am lucky in that i can use testosterone/cortisol ratios from weekly blood draws and also glutamine/glutamate ratios to assist in determining the stress level of the training for an individual athlete. this allows me to be pretty precise in loading an athlete to his limit without crossing the line into real overtraining... then determining the correct volume of training for the unloading period so that recovry takes place without any detraining. unfortunately i doubt any of you have the rescources to do this or the expertise to interpret the data correctly if you did have access to it.

HOWEVER... i do have some "rule of thumb" guidlines... during loading, if you are capable of setting personal records... your not loading hard enough. on the other hand, if performance falls below 85% for more than one or two workouts in a row... then you need to lighten the load. the length of the loading period is also individual. start with one week to 10 days... after youve gone through a couple of cycles experiment with 2 and 3 week loading periods. very few people can handle a 3 week loading period. i know i cant. howeer the bulgarians and greeks do, so i know some great athletes can do it, and maybe some of you can. as far as unloading... you should be approaching peak performance after 7-10 days of unloading... you should have peak performance somewhere between 14 and 21 days of unloading. you dont always want to allow peak performance. you may want to follow 2 or 3 consecutive loading cycles without every allowing complete recover during unloading, if you are really advanced... however i dont recomend this for beginners to this type of training... load then unload long enough to set new personal records... allow another week or two to get good and rested then load again.

hope this helps explain how this is used in the real world... sorry but its just impossible to get into sets and reps on a specific basis... but if you copied the 8 week squat program i posted several times a while back this is an example of this type of training, and its a proven and result producing program."

Angel Face’s Response:

RE: RE: I'll restart then...

Interesting...I wasnt aware of HST before
...Its good that the dual factor theory is being integreated into thinking...a Large proportion of research pertaining to training is based on the one factor theory, hence a lot of the fundamentals being based on supercomp...and overload...I have always though there was much more to it personally,

...I will bump JS's advice simply put because he is correct...

...HST may work for you, try it..rember the individualisation principle, tailor it to yourself as you know your body best...

...The majority of research speculates that within the rep ranges of 5-8 and 10-12 the most hypertrophy occurs, dont take this as gospel, chances are this is more related to TUT, and extraneous variables than a specific no. of reps...I will cover TUT next along with a few other things...
I will post back later...busy at the mo.
Time Under Tension:

Sorry mate, been well busy as of late....
Time under tension specifically towards hyertrophy...well this theory, popularised by charles Poliquin and Ian King mainly, is surprisingly simple to implement and understand...yet will help produce good results..

...easy, if we rember that there is an inverse relationship between a mucle fibres power producing capacities and endurance capabilities then its pretty obvious that there is a relationship between time and optimal training... sets and reps take place over time (well duhhh!!!) hopefully you will see that it is more precise to relate load and time together as opposed to load and reps/sets....

...counting reps may not actually be the indicator of the amount of work that you have performed...if anything reps are simply a marker or reference point, if we look at the equation work = force x distance...well a rep tells you that you've performed work...but not how much...

...for instance, on the bench you've got an indicidual who benches 300lbs for 5 reps, the eccentric takes 2 seconds and the conecntric takes 1, there is no pause...conversley take another exmaple of an indivdual who performs 300lbs for 5 reps however, his eccentric takes 5 seconds with a one second pause at the bottom...concentric takes 3 seconds....who do you think has performed more work? however they are both moving the same amount of weight for the same amount of reps...also who will have the better 1 rm and chest development (hypothetically!!!)
...its pretty simple...also, think of kinetic energy and momentum, during a fast eccentric you are building up kinetic energy (Kinetic energy is energy due to motion) which have a rebounbd effect meaning that the momentum created by the fast eccentric translates into an easier concentric....meaning that more weight will be moved.....I refere you to the concept of kinetic energy again, kinetic energy increases due to an increase in accleration ie a faster eccentric (momentum is the product of mass and velocity, force mathematically can be represented as a rate of change of momentum...as momentum decreases so does velocity)...basically what this means is that due to the decreases in accelertion and momentum kinetic energy decreases which means that it is harder to move an object...(I hate kinematics!!!!!!)

in the previous example if individual no 2 were to perform a set of 5 reps with a 2 second eccentric and 1 second concentric then the amount of weight that the individual will shift will be a lot more than 300lbs.

...say someone performs a set of 10 with a speed of 3 secs per rep then the total TUT would be 30 seconds for that set...if an individual performed a set of 5 with a 6 second speed, the TUT would be the same....if strength improvements are to have occured then the amount of time is a very important factor... an increase in strength can only be accurate if either the weight has increased with TUT and reps the same... or if the load remains constant and reps and TUT increased. But, if in a set TUT (total not per rep) was the same, as does load...however the reps increased then it may be that an individual has actually regressed slightly because per rep the amount of work performed hs decreased to perform the rep....remeber the accomodation principle mentioned a while ago....it states that if a stimulus was to remain contant, after initial adaptations accor then the amount of gain declines over time....this is an example of such....
...so then what is the optimal TUT... generally for optimal muscle growth, a muscle should be under tension for between 40 and 70 (approx)seconds....however this does not have to be on a single set....

...absolute TUT is also a factor, so then 3 x 10 with a total TUT for the each set of 40 seconds equals 120 seconds of total TUT, however 6 x 5 with a TUT of 20 seconds for each set equals the same absolute TUT of 120 seconds.

...Basically, monitor time, it can be extremeley beneficial, by implementing a few of the ideas I have mentioned here you add to the arsenal of variety....periodise TUT like anything else!!!

AnimalMass

PS - these are highlights from a thread that a couple friends of mine and I went through on a board a while back ago.
 
Last edited:
AM...given your understanding of TUT theories, how would you explain those that "Grow" well under low TUT? Also, those that don't grow well under high TUT? Are they just considered exceptions? Or are there, in fact, as many exceptions as there are people?

Based on the muscle recruitment you mentioned, would variety not be a major factor in success for the "majority?"
 
spatts said:
AM...given your understanding of TUT theories, how would you explain those that "Grow" well under low TUT? Also, those that don't grow well under high TUT? Are they just considered exceptions? Or are there, in fact, as many exceptions as there are people?

Based on the muscle recruitment you mentioned, would variety not be a major factor in success for the "majority?"

Well, I had to go back and read what I said earlier, as I wrote this article with some buddies over a year ago now, but let me say this...

My definition in the article of TUT was total time under tension in a set for optimal hypertrophy purposes. With that said, I don't buy into the unltra slow eccentric portion that some TUT or HIT guys religiously adhere to.

From here on I should pre-face my views by stating that I dont give a rats ass about hypertrophy other than as a means to aquiring further strength or maintaining strength gains as strength gained in conjunction with hypertrophy is easier maintained.

Here is how I look at it. The concentric phase of a given rep should be as fast as possible. The weight on the bar will dictate HOW fast this actually is..after all nobody "pops up" a weight over 85% max.

The weight on the bar will also dictate the maximal number of CONCENTRIC reps that can be performed with no eccentrics. The only variable you could consider changing is the negative (eccentric) portion of the rep. For example if you were to deliberately take as long as possible to lower a near maximal weight (and no, I DON'T recomend you try this...lol) then you aint gonna bring it back up.

Incidentally if you ever want to remove ALL the effcts of "momentum" and the elastic properties of the musculotendonal complex you would have to pause in the stretched postiion for several minutes, not seconds, so forget that idea.

Given these facts it becomes apparent that any attempt to "emphasise the negative" in order to increase TUT is only going to reduce the number of concetric reps and the speed they can be executed at. Pointless! This would be worthwhile if your eccentric strength was anything like concentric but seeing as most folks are 140 to 160% stronger in the eccentric of a given movement then what exactly are you accomplishing by slowing down the bar? Increasing temporary fatigue with a hugely submaximal load to the detriment of the number of further reps that can be perfromed.

What I suggest you do is simply LOWER the BAR ! Just frickin let it go down, slow it as the amortization phase approaches, turnaround and go back. If you wish to empasize eccentrics in order to increase damage then do it AT THE END OF THE SET.

Maximise the number of concentric / eccentric reps as above and the when you have got your rep count do a "slow" neg if you feel it is going to make a difference. Just dont do them all the time at the detriment of work done. IMHO the protein breakdown theory of hypertrophy is pretty much correct, so maximise the work done with a given load - don't do anything to deliberately reduce the work done - this includes slowing down the negs throughout a set.

AnimalMass
 
Additionally, after totally hammering TUT, I do want to say that I think theres pretty solid evidence that its not the "breaking down" of the muscle that causes hypertrophy... rather the tension put on the muscle is the cause. The "breaking down" of muscle protein is an unfortunate side effect that unfortunately cannot be avoided.

AnimalMass
 
AnimalMass1 said:
Additionally, after totally hammering TUT, I do want to say that I think theres pretty solid evidence that its not the "breaking down" of the muscle that causes hypertrophy... rather the tension put on the muscle is the cause. The "breaking down" of muscle protein is an unfortunate side effect that unfortunately cannot be avoided.

AnimalMass

i have been hearing more and more that it is tension in the muscle that causes the hypertrophy, but of course then is it the peak tension, mean tension, duration of x amount of tension, and so on.
 
well, to be honest as you saw, hypertrophy is not my goal at all, so I am not as well versed in this as I once was, however, your question is an excellent one, and one where there hasn't been a ton of research based soley on hypertrophy.

So I will try to get into my ex phys books and ask a few genius friends of mine.

However, in saying that, without going into it very deep, I would say that it is a combo of things. Obviously peak tension is put on the muscles of a powerlifter, without the total time under tension of a bodybuilder doing 5 sets of 12 of a particular muscle group. But likewise, if someone uses an ultra-light load, like 10lb dumbells for curls, and does 20 sets of 10, making the total time under tension extremely great, but the peak tension is sad to say the least - do you think they will grow?

The problem is in looking at tension as an individual factor - in the same way Zatsiorski looks at fitness and fatigue being two seperate factors (which I agree with). When coupled correctly with intensity, volume, etc. - tension can be used and altered and periodized to maximize hypertrophy.

AnimalMass
 
Animalmass - do you remember what training board that was? It sounds like an incredibly knowledgeable place!

On a side note: it's funny you should mention Millard. He's one of HST's resident "big guys." I think Bryan Haycock, the HST founder/inventor/whatever trained him personally.

-casualbb
 
LOL - yep Millard is a very good friend, and Bryan is also a very close friend. I was one of the first, along with Millard to try HST.

I mod at, Meso-Rx, and the training board there is awesome.

Alot of it was lost ir is in the archives though.

AnimalMass
 
yes and no - it's recovery following significant tension. i.e. - you can recover from your drunken stuper last night and not grow an inch. - lol - (Just giving you a hard time girl)

AnimalMass
 
You know nectar makes me feel drunk... :p

Seriously though, if you rip fibers, now matter HOW adequately you rip them, if you don't let them heal before ripping them again, they will not grow. There is a genetic exception to this rule for a trait that I posted for c-ditty a while back. Other than that, I would say there's a balance between efficient catabolism of the fibers, and the recovery that allows the anabolic reaction to that catabolism, that are equally important, IMO.
 
Yeah, you are exactly right, - it is recovery where you grow, but my point I was making is that it's the preceding tension put on the muscle and not the tearing of fibers that causes the biggest amount of growth.

And this comes into play in the biggest sense with failure, and beyond failure techniques that are a total waste of time. Studies have shown that complete muscular failure is not needed at all more optimum growth, and in fact leaving a rep or two in you can and will cause the same amount of growth, but will allow for your body to recover much faster.

(I have a past post of mine on this somewhere, I will hunt it down .)

AnimalMass
 
Seriously though, if you rip fibers, now matter HOW adequately you rip them, if you don't let them heal before ripping them again, they will not grow.

That's untrue. You can load a muscle even while it's recovering to no adverse effect:

Repeated eccentric exercise bouts do not exacerbate muscle damage and repair.

From the abstract:
These results suggest that ECC2 and ECC3 [the subsequent second and third loading] did not exacerbate muscle damage or affect the recovery process.

There are also studies on rats (I can't find them), where they remove the gastrocnemius, placing the standing load entirely on the soleus. Here these poor rats were having their muscles loaded the entire day, with barely any rest. Yet, within weeks, the soleus would double in size and weight to compensate.

-casualbb
 
right on, nice post

I don't buy into the unltra slow eccentric portion that some TUT or HIT guys religiously adhere to.

me either. there was a long study done at my school (Farthing, et al) about this recently. basically, the explosive group grew (hypertrophy) over 2x the 'TUT' group did.
Are there any studies to counter this ??

even all the anecdotal refs. ive seen seemed to disagree with tut
 
IF I was forced to train for size choosing only one amount of reps, it would be: 7 REPS, low enough to get some neurologic adaption (which improves strength and therefore the potential for progressive overload = long term gains) while at the same doing the "repeated effort" kind of damage to induce hypertrophy.
 
casualbb said:


That's untrue. You can load a muscle even while it's recovering to no adverse effect:

Repeated eccentric exercise bouts do not exacerbate muscle damage and repair.

From the abstract:


There are also studies on rats (I can't find them), where they remove the gastrocnemius, placing the standing load entirely on the soleus. Here these poor rats were having their muscles loaded the entire day, with barely any rest. Yet, within weeks, the soleus would double in size and weight to compensate.

-casualbb

i remember a dude at my highschool back in the day and he walked on crutches all the the time i think he was missin a leg, but that kid had some sick tris and i doubt he watched what he ate or was trying to be a bodybuilder
 
Well, I'm not a rat, and many things are different about rats and athletic humans, but I will concede and change my statement to reflect that I can't grow without healing time.


...and it can't be all that common to achieve maximal hypertrophy with constant exertion in an already active human, or there wouldn't be (relatively) new abstarcts on recessive genetic traits that allow a small number of humans the privilege to grow under constant duress.
 
spatts said:
Well, I'm not a rat, and many things are different about rats and athletic humans,

amen!

in that study.....50% of maximal isometric force? were these trained or untrained individuals? on the surface this study...
looks like a valid argument. but only on the surface.......

:dodgy:
 
That 50% of isometric 1RM (BTW...that's closer to 65% of a concentric 1RM) caused muscle damage, IE provided a growth stimulus. The actual load used is immaterial; the point is that the same weight that causes muscle damage and growth can be repeated after 2 days to no ill effect.

Hell, I've trained 5x2 of my squat 5RM every other day for two weeks straight and added .5 in. to each thigh. You don't need as much time off as everybody thinks.

-casualbb
 
I don't feel like searching through all the research, I just have a simple question, how does HST explain the fact that, in general, the strongest guys in the gym are also the biggest? And the stronger you get the bigger you get? Assuming you're eating enough.
 
AnimalMass I have a few questions for you about your article and training for strength and hypertrophy.

1) since time under load is not a basis for growth would you recommend a progressive loading over time to induce growth? This is based on not going to failure but gradually adding weight.

2) to induce maximum hypertrophy should one train in a mixed rep scheme to stress all muscle fiber types? or just focus on white vs pink and red?

3) should one base their training on fatigue factors, getting tired or not able to lift the same weight the same amoutn of reps? or on goal factors such as them squating 3 sets of 6 reps and not feeling tired at all?
 
Suston, let me answer what I can of your questions:

1) Progressive resistance is one of the keys to causing and sustaining growth. Any program that's successful for more than a few weeks has some form of progressive load. Some build in the progressive load (HST, 5x5), and others that have you train to failure all the time will probably incorporate some progressive loading unintentionally as one makes strength gains.

2) Here's the skinny on fiber types...
The way your body works is for very light loads, your body only engages the slow-twitch. As the load goes up, the body adds fast-twitch fibers as it needs to. It only calls upon enough necessary to just make the lift. So the recruitment goes like this:
slow-twitch->mid-range->fast-twitch. You never skip straight to the fast-twitch; the fast-twitch fibers are recruited ON TOP of the slow-twitch ones. The whole thing about "high weights for fast-twitch, low weights for slow-twitch" is a myth because when you lift high weights they all get recruited according to that order. Also people are rarely if ever lifting with weights low enough to engage only slow-twitch stuff.

3) Getting tired has very little to do with hypertrophy. It's all based on load. It's to your benefit NOT to go to failure because then your next training can happen sooner, keeping you in a more constant state of growth.

On that same note, goal reps might work. Although you shouldn't be so focused on getting that last rep that you need a spot to do it; that would overly fatigue your nervous system. A great way to go about it is to adjust your reps as necessary to accomodate the load progression. A lot of the HST guys do this: they don't really follow the established rep ranges, they just increase the load each time and stop the set when their rep speed slows down. This way they're never lifting to failure and can lift frequently.

I hope that helps.

-casualbb
 
Adaptations occur in all humans according to the circumstances and stresses that one endures. Sometimes adaptations fail to occur because necessary ingredients are lacking or missing.

This business of recovery is one of the things that seemed to be known. Over the last 50 years bodybuilders have trained each muscle less frequently than previously. In the 1960's many believed you alternated upperbody with lowerbody days. Thus one trained upperbody on MWF and Lower body on TThSa. Eventually most trainees found this too taxing and dropped out or stagnated. Along came Arthur Jones and many read his articles and even ads and changed their training. Most eventually trained more intensely but less frequently. Many believed that a muscle grew best with intervals of between 4 and 7 days. Training a muscle every fifth day seemed a good compromise. The exception was the calves and many felt more frequent sessions were required to make the calves respond.

Along comes Mr Haycock and others armed with evidence from science that shows that muscles can grow with more frequent intervals. Since protein is synthesized up to about 48 hours after workouts it was assumed training should be done every second day to provide a stimulus to continue protein synthesis. These thinkers applied other research to training methods and varied the load by changing the reps. Clever application. From what we hear this process has the support of most people who have experimented with the HST method.

I personally have trained a target muscle and got it sore and kept it sore for about a month. I ended up with sore connective tissue but the muscles grew rapidly. That convinced me that the potential for growth is much more than is seen on most trainees. Most people at any one time are probably NOT growing. Why is this so? There have been some "explanations" but I am not convinced it is a matter of intensity or any other factor. Somehow regular training is adapted to and that is why progress stops. Trainees have to vary things in order to sustain an adaptation.

Women clearly find if more difficult to hypertrophy. I doubt that their muscles are different at the cellular level than what we find in men. Can women grow when a muscle has not recovered? I have no doubt that this can happen in everyone. Of course we assume that all other conditions such as nutrition are optimal. We are learning about the hypertrophy process and when more information is available we will have to abandon many of our assumptions because they will be found to be lacking or plainly false. That a particular person feels they need to 'recover' is no proof that they really do. How would they know? What exactly is recovery, anyway? We all use such terms but the actually internal processes in muscles are hardly understood by most of us.

Either a muscle can continue to grow while it is growing or it cannot. It is not a matter for conjecture. It doesn't depend on opinions but on physiology. That is what must be discovered or learned.

If you take a moment to go way back in time to primitive man who we evolved from and consider the following situation it might help our understanding here. Suppose a man or woman were in a struggle with another animal over a food source. Suppose the man got exhausted from the ordeal and had to sleep rather wasted from it all. In the morning he still lacked food and had to keep looking and perhaps even struggling for it. His muscles would be sore from that struggle. Do you think this individual would be unable to search for food? Well, if he couldn't then he wouldn't survive and it would be unlikely that his poor genes would be passed on to any of us. Thus, only those who could use their muscles, even if sore, would survive. This means that we can still adapt even if our bodies are suffering.

There is sufficient evidence from scientific studies on fowl to suggest that continuous tension over long periods of time lead to rapid and significant hypertrophy. We are talking about increases of up to 300% in a short period of time. That means that the potential for hypertrophy is hardly tapped in humans.

Instead of clinging to our beliefs we should try to falsify them. Test them and if they continue to work then continue to embrace them. Otherwise, keep an open mind and be prepared to abandon precious beliefs.
 
Vince Basile said:
Instead of clinging to our beliefs we should try to falsify them. Test them and if they continue to work then continue to embrace them. Otherwise, keep an open mind and be prepared to abandon precious beliefs.

I agree... well said. Throughout history, we have progessed because people continued to question whatever was the "status quo"

-Fatty
 
cassualbb thanks for the lesson. got a good feel for the methods many have describe earlier. on a 6 day training cycle incorporate a few speed sets on day you don't train a certain muscle.

example d1=back/traps and then on day 4 after two days rest I would do three speed sets, two of back and one fro traps, not max load but around 50% at max speed but not to failure. This is just to place a little stress on those area and to increase neuromusclular efficiancy
 
Lord_Suston said:
cassualbb thanks for the lesson. got a good feel for the methods many have describe earlier. on a 6 day training cycle incorporate a few speed sets on day you don't train a certain muscle.

example d1=back/traps and then on day 4 after two days rest I would do three speed sets, two of back and one fro traps, not max load but around 50% at max speed but not to failure. This is just to place a little stress on those area and to increase neuromusclular efficiancy

I've seen something similar to that where you work each bodypart twice a week and on one day do explosive exercises, another heavy weights. I believe WSB uses this, but I also remember seeing it elsewhere before I read about Westside and it having a different name.

Tell us how it goes, Lord_Suston.
 
Good Post!

It seems I've been training right all this time :)
explosive concentrics, low reps (to minimise effects of fatigue on force output), fairly fast eccentrics, right number of sets to make up the volume and never going to failure. I do use slight pauses to change things up.
With concentrated loading phases along with the required deloading periods. Fairly high frequency

Gains have been good from the strnegth and hypertrophy angles so far, all things considered.

It almost feels alien to me to even reach failure :D


Long live modern scientific training.
 
Last edited:
There is sufficient evidence from scientific studies on fowl to suggest that continuous tension over long periods of time lead to rapid and significant hypertrophy. We are talking about increases of up to 300% in a short period of time. That means that the potential for hypertrophy is hardly tapped in humans.

An interesting point. Bryan Haycock posted something on the HST boards that kind of addresses that. I'm gonna repost that...

Initial Question:
My question in a nutshell is this......Why is the growth stimulus so much more profound in the lab animals than our weight room training (is it the continuous muscle tension caused by the prolonged stretch?)

Bryan Haycock:
Actually that is a very good question. And it is exactly that question that initiated my quest to find out why bodybuilding methods were the way they were... In other words, I too questioned why we don't experience the kind of hypertrophy produced in animal studies. It is one of the big questions that initiated the collection of data that led to HST.

Simply put, animal studies produce faster gains because the stimulus is not removed so quickly after it has been applied. As you mentioned, stretch-overload is a method often used to induce hypertrophy for research.

A comparable experiment using stretch-overload in a human would entail tying a weight to your hand equal to about 10%-30% of your bodyweight and then measuring how much your trap grew. So if you were 220 lbs (100 kilos) you would have to hold a 66 lb (29.9kg) dumbbell for about 3 weeks or so…without putting it down accept to sleep. I guarantee you your trap would grow like crazy. You would be miserable and in terrible pain while it was happening, but hey, big traps are worth it!

Or perhaps a more realistic example would be carrying a kid on your shoulders. If you’ve ever carried someone on your shoulders for very long, even a child, you know how painful it gets within a few minutes. Go several hours, then days, and you would produce a tremendous stimulus for growth and adaptation.

However, some very interesting data has been produced from stretch-overload studies. It has been discovered that as little as 30 minutes overload per day will produce 50% of the hypertrophy that 8 hours per day will produce. (Bates GP. The relationship between duration of stimulus per day and the extent of hypertrophy of slow-tonic skeletal muscle in the fowl, Gallus gallus. Comp Biochem Physiol Comp Physiol 1993 Dec;106(4):755-8)( Frankeny JR, Holly RG, Ashmore CR. Effects of graded duration of stretch on normal and dystrophic skeletal muscle. Muscle Nerve 1983 May;6(4):269-77) That means that half of the growth from 8 hours of stretch occurs in the first 30 minutes. That’s great news for us lifters.

Another important observation is that although greater durations of loading produce hypertrophy faster, over time, shorter bouts of loading will eventually produce the same amount of growth. (DeVol DL, Novakofski J, Fernando R, Bechtel PJ. Varying amounts of stretch stimulus regulate stretch-induced muscle hypertrophy in the chicken. Comp Biochem Physiol A 1991;100(1):55-61)

So, in the end it isn’t necessary to hold a weight for several weeks to get big traps. You can do it cumulatively by putting “active” stretch-overload on them 3-6 times a week by doing long sets of shrugs.

Keep in mind while thinking about this stuff that the animals don’t simply let the weight hang. They will try to “hold” the weight. In other words, when you hold a pair of dumbbells in your hands you don’t relax the traps. Even if you don’t shrug the weight, you are still contracting the muscle against the pull of the weight.

One other thing to remember is that this clearly demonstrates that muscle does not need to “recover” before loading the muscle again in order to grow. If muscle had to recuperate before it would grow, none of these studies would produce any hypertrophy at all. After all, there is no rest in these studies. You simply load the muscle and leave it for days or even weeks and it grows like nothing we have been able to produce in the gym.

-casualbb
 
interesting posts guys about this continuis overload

i may have posted this before but their is a guy at my gym who used to play for the xfl. hes about 6feet8 and weighs a ripped 275 a real monster. but when he goes to the gym he is a big talker. he mainly bullshits with people then he does a few sets and talks more and does a few more sets. he stays their like a few hours doing that shit. makes me think he knows somethin that i dont
 
spatts said:
6' 8" and 275 sounds skinny to me. I've never seen the guy though.

lol your crazy. the man has 19 inch arms maybe 19 1/2 and ripped abs. he would easily put anyones physique to shame on this board. when people see pounds and weight they make a judgment too fast on how big someone is and how their physique is.

to debaser-yes i dont doubt he used roids. he has that look i guess. kinda the square jawed forehead look to him like paul dillet
 
Yeah I hate what it does, Bill Phillips comes to mind also...does the change in skull shape happen after repeated use, high doses in general, or what?
 
nclifter6feet6 said:


lol your crazy. the man has 19 inch arms maybe 19 1/2 and ripped abs. he would easily put anyones physique to shame on this board. when people see pounds and weight they make a judgment too fast on how big someone is and how their physique is.

to debaser-yes i dont doubt he used roids. he has that look i guess. kinda the square jawed forehead look to him like paul dillet

19" arms at 6'8" aren't all that great, though. I've had them less than a foot shorter than him, and much lighter too. I wasn't ripped at that weight, but he needs at least 21.5" to even approach putting "anyones physique on this board to shame."

As it is, I would match arm size with him. If you scaled him down to a 5'6" guy, he might be lucky to have 16.5" arms--Frank Zane size!

As for his training "style" or knowledge, don't run with that false cause again...you seem to attribute all size to either training or drugs. Genetics are far more important than either, though I'd take a hard trainer with only decent genetics over some lazy-assed Paul Dillett type.
 
Like I said, "I've never seen the guy, though." :rolleyes:



...and it's GH that contributes the sides you're talking about, not steroids.
 
guldukat said:


19" arms at 6'8" aren't all that great, though. I've had them less than a foot shorter than him, and much lighter too. I wasn't ripped at that weight, but he needs at least 21.5" to even approach putting "anyones physique on this board to shame."

As it is, I would match arm size with him. If you scaled him down to a 5'6" guy, he might be lucky to have 16.5" arms--Frank Zane size!

As for his training "style" or knowledge, don't run with that false cause again...you seem to attribute all size to either training or drugs. Genetics are far more important than either, though I'd take a hard trainer with only decent genetics over some lazy-assed Paul Dillett type.

dude your silly

a man that is 6feet8 with 19 inch arms has an arm length well over a foot longer than a man 5feet8. think about it it in total mass the tall mans arm is way bigger than a 19 inch arm of someone who is 5feet8. sorry short guy. and the judges would agree. priest has about the same arm size as a ronnie coleman or gunther. but look how much more massive they look than lee priest. and hell gunther is just 6feet3 this guy at the gym is 6 feet 8 and would tower over gunther
 
also about the continuis tension thing.......

i used to do 1000 pushups everyday for about a month. my chest definitly grew. but i dont think i was taking in enough protien for all the pounding i was doing to my body. but the chest did grow
 
nclifter6feet6 said:
dude your silly

Yes, I know. But my post wasn't.

a man that is 6feet8 with 19 inch arms has an arm length well over a foot longer than a man 5feet8.

Indeed. His bones are also bigger, and his muscles are far longer. That's a plus for building actual size, but for perceived size, it is a hindrance for the tall man.

I think you're confusing the two. An 18" arm will look crazy-huge on a guy that's 4'11", and less than crazy huge on a 5'11" guy, but it's much, much easier for the 5'11" guy to build that measurement.

think about it it in total mass the tall mans arm is way bigger than a 19 inch arm of someone who is 5feet8. sorry short guy.

No. It's smaller because his bones have to be bigger. But even with similar bones, the mass of that measurement is the same, dude.

Again, you're confusing actual size with "perceived size."

and the judges would agree. priest has about the same arm size as a ronnie coleman or gunther. but look how much more massive they look than lee priest. and hell gunther is just 6feet3 this guy at the gym is 6 feet 8 and would tower over gunther

I hear you, but in fact Lee's arms are not anywhere near Ronnie's actual measurements. Charles Poliquin taped Lee at about 20.5". Ronnie is close to 22".

And remember, an arm measurement is simply a measurement of diameter. An arm is like a cylinder. You can plug in the dimensions and come up with an actual volume. If both arms are 19", the volume is the same. So if both are muscular arms, the mass (weight) is the same, too.

But yes, I am short :) LOL. Don't remind me, tall guy!
 
guldukat said:


Yes, I know. But my post wasn't.



Indeed. His bones are also bigger, and his muscles are far longer. That's a plus for building actual size, but for perceived size, it is a hindrance for the tall man.

I think you're confusing the two. An 18" arm will look crazy-huge on a guy that's 4'11", and less than crazy huge on a 5'11" guy, but it's much, much easier for the 5'11" guy to build that measurement.



No. It's smaller because his bones have to be bigger. But even with similar bones, the mass of that measurement is the same, dude.

Again, you're confusing actual size with "perceived size."



I hear you, but in fact Lee's arms are not anywhere near Ronnie's actual measurements. Charles Poliquin taped Lee at about 20.5". Ronnie is close to 22".

And remember, an arm measurement is simply a measurement of diameter. An arm is like a cylinder. You can plug in the dimensions and come up with an actual volume. If both arms are 19", the volume is the same. So if both are muscular arms, the mass (weight) is the same, too.

But yes, I am short :) LOL. Don't remind me, tall guy!


the volume of a 6feet8 guy with 20 inch arms verses a 5feet8 guy with 20 inch arms. THE ARM VOLUME ON THE 6FEET8 GUY IS BIGGER. I suggest you go back to your introductory algebra


just like you said its like a cylinder

its like comparing a 4 inch pencil to a 6 inch pencil, both having equal thickness. the 6 inch pencil has more volume than the 4 inch.

oh and thanks for the negative karma scruples
 
nclifter6feet6 said:
the volume of a 6feet8 guy with 20 inch arms verses a 5feet8 guy with 20 inch arms. THE ARM VOLUME ON THE 6FEET8 GUY IS BIGGER. I suggest you go back to your introductory algebra

just like you said its like a cylinder

Somewhat, but it's a crude analogy. Biceps aren't uniformly thick from armpit to elbow, which is one way in which the "taller guy = far more muscle volume" idea falls flat. I suppose a barrel would be a better way to figure it out.

But the arms are similar enough to cylinders for our purposes right now, especially because there's more to a cylinder than just its outer radius and height.

Generally speaking, the tall man has--just as you noted--longer arms. He has to have longer muscles to go with that, plus longer and larger bones and a greater amount of connective tissue.

So it's back to introductory algebra, but for you this time ;) You need to consider that the tall man's arm has a greater inner radius, or non-muscular make-up, than the short guy does.

So actually, no, the greater volume you "win" from having a "taller cylinder," so to speak, is offset by the fact that your volume measurement reflects much more bone than mine does...you cannot have it both ways :)

its like comparing a 4 inch pencil to a 6 inch pencil, both having equal thickness. the 6 inch pencil has more volume than the 4 inch.

But pencils don't work for us, because the two arms in question don't have equal muscle thickness. They might have the same circumference, but one guy's arm is literally "bonier" than the other.

It's like saying that a pencil made up of 50% of graphite, the rest wood, has the same "thickness" of a pencil that's 30% graphite/70% wood.

Sure they're equally thick, *if* you confuse the issue and start talking pencils (an arm's circumference). But that ignores the context of the comparison, where one pencil is not made of as much wood (muscle).

But enough of that crap. Let's stay on track here.

The whole idea is that, to look big--and therefore "put someone's physique to shame"--a tall man is going to have to carry a lot more bodyweight and much bigger measurements to look far more muscular than short men.

That's all there is to it. If you're 7'11", your 18" arms would look far less muscular than if someone half your height had the same measurement. For your arm to appear huge, you'd better push it up into the territory of a Gregg Valentino.

Tall guys have it harder in looking all filled out, but where measurements are concerned? No way: you've got it far easier. Don't believe me? Watch some NBA, and no, I'm not thinking of Alonzo Mourning or anyone who obviously lifts. Just look for a tall, fairly lean--no, LANKY--guy. Someone at least 6'11".

Now, compare the size of his arm to that of a ref's, or anyone of "average" (read: short) height. You'll know from looking at the player that he probably has never even seen a weight room, yet he has 17" arms!

Scale his bones and proportions down to fit someone my height, and he might have 11" arms if he was lucky.

See what I mean?
 
part two by animal mass


link to article is at bottom


Dual Factor Hypertrophy Training:
Note: first off, I'd like to thank AngelFace, JohnSmith, and Gavin for contributing to this article.
There are basically two accepted theories in the world of weight training. One is called Supercompensation (or Single Factor Theory), and the other is called the Fitness Fatigue Theory (or Dual Factor Theory). Bodybuilding tends to follow the Supercompensation way of thinking, while virtually every field of strength and conditioning, athletics, etc. follows the Dual Factor Theory. The reasoning that almost everyone involved in strength training adheres to the Dual Factor Theory is because there is scientific proof that it works, not to mention that the eastern bloc countries that have adhered to this theory have kicked America's ass at every Olympics since the 1950s.
Bodybuilding, for years, has basically ignored Dual Factor Theory and opted for Single Factor Theory training. In the following paragraphs, I hope to prove to you why Dual Factor Theory should be accepted, taught, and adhered to in the world of bodybuilding as well as all other athletes concerned with strength and conditioning.
Note: The one exception to the rule of "all bodybuilding programs based on Supercompensation" is Bryan Haycock's HST, which, from Bryan's own mouth, says that it wasn't based on dual factor theory, although he hit it dead-on, on all points. What I didn't care for personally with HST is that the same amount of importance is placed on the 15-rep phase and the negative rep phase as with the 10 rep and 5 rep phases. The thickness that rep ranges in the 3-8 range provide are far more impressive to me personally than those who focus on 12-15 rep schemes and countless negatives. I also wasn't excited about working the entire body in one workout. The CNS drain was unbelievable. – However, in saying that, HST is the best I've seen compared to everything else out there, and I did make good progress on it.
The Supercompensation Theory has been, in the bodybuilding community, the most widely accepted school of thought. However, people are beginning to see it as a bit too simplistic (the strength and conditioning and athletic movements have never accepted this practice). The theory itself is based on the fact that training depletes certain substances (like glycogen, and slowing protein synthesis). Training is seen as catabolic, draining the body of its necessary nutrients and fun stuff. So to grow, according to the theory, the body must then be rested for the appropriate/ optimal amount of time, AND, it (the body) must be supplied with all the nutrients it lost. If both of these things are done correctly, then theoretically your body will increase protein synthesis and store more nutrients than it originally had! (i.e. – your muscles will be bigger!)
So obviously the most important part of this theory is TIMING! (Specifically concerning the rest period). But that's where the problem comes in. "If the rest period was too short, then the individual would not be completely recovered and as such the training would deplete the substance even more, which over a period of time would result in overtraining and a loss of performance. If the rest interval were too long then the training would lose its stimulus property, and the individual would recover completely and lose the window of opportunity to provide the stimulus again. If the interval is optimal then improvements surely follow" (AF).
"So, given the one factor theory (Supercompensation), which looks at physical ability as, of course, one factor, you are left with the problem of timing workouts to correspond to the supercompensation wave... anything sooner or later will lead to a useless workout"(JS).
Another issue concerning the Supercompensation/ Single Factor Theory is that of FAILURE. Almost every program that utilizes this type of training advocates the use of muscle/ CNS failure, and then fully rest, and then beat the crap out of your muscles again, then rest, etc (I'm referring to the "work one bodypart per day, six days per week" program as well as HIT, popularized by Mike Mentzer). The issue is that it has now been proven that total failure is not necessarily needed for optimal growth. It has been shown that leaving a rep or two in the tank can and will yield the same results AND therefore a shorter rest period will be needed and less accumulation of fatigue will still be present by the time the next training session rolls around.

A Better Way…
The Dual Factor Theory, also called Fitness Fatigue Theory is somewhat more complex than the Supercompensation Theory. The theory is based on the fact that and individual's fitness and fatigue are totally independent of each other. This theory is entirely dependant on one's base conditioning (or physical preparedness or fitness). The thing is, when you have a high level of fitness (or conditioning/ preparedness) this level changes fairly slowly. This is because over the short term fitness does not fluctuate often. (However, fatigue can change (increase or decrease) fairly quickly when compared to fitness).
"The theory works like an equilibrium in that training will have an immediate effect on the body (similar to supercompensation). This effect is the combination of fatigue and gain (again, remember the equilibrium thing). So after a workout, because of the stimulus that training provides, preparedness/conditioning/fitness increases (gain) but at the same time will decrease due to fatigue from the training."
"So, the outcome of the training session is the result of both the positive and negative consequences of the training session. These two outcomes depend on time. By striking the correct balance, fatigue should be large in extent but short in how long it lasts. Gain on the other hand should be moderate, however, and is longer in duration. Typically the relationship is 1:3, if fatigue lasts x amount of time then gain lasts 3x amount of time."
"Given the two factor theory, which separates physical fitness or preparedness and fatigue, you see that the timing of individual workouts is unimportant to long term gains (unlike Supercompensation)... in other words regardless of whether or not fatigue is or is not present, fitness can and will still be increased" (which is the goal)...
So what you get concerning the two-factor theory is a period of peaking fatigue (maybe 6 weeks), followed by a period of rest (maybe 2 weeks deloading, then one or two weeks of total rest). You view entire weeks and maybe months, as you would of viewed just one workout with the single factor theory. For example, in the single factor theory, one workout represents a period of fatigue. – But, in the two-factor theory, 6 weeks would represent a period of fatigue. In the single factor theory, a day or two (up to a week) represents a period of rest. But in the two-factor theory, up to four weeks may represent a period rest.
"What is important to note is that there is almost universal agreement among scientists and athletes and coaches in all sports EXCEPT bodybuilding that the two factor theory is correct and the single factor theory is not correct and is in fact suitable only for beginners to follow when planning training."
"It is also important to note that most athletes in most sports are experiencing some level of constant fatigue ALWAYS, except for maybe a couple of weekends a year, when they are peaking. Training takes place daily against a backdrop of fatigue". Therefore, you should be able to see why, concerning the single factor theory, it would be very hard to ever fully recover, unless you sat on your ass for two weeks and did nothing."
Applying it to the real world…
When setting up dual factor periodization for the bodybuilder, it is important to remember to plan for periods of fatigue and periods of rest. During a fatigue period (say, 3 weeks), you slowly build up fatigue, and never fully recover. Then you have a period of recovery (another 1-3 weeks) where you train with reduced frequency, volume, or intensity. (My preference is to keep intensity high, while drastically lowering volume and slightly lowering frequency.) At any rate, the fatiguing and recovery periods most likely won't be as drastic for a bodybuilder as it would for a strength athlete because there will be no peaking phase for performance (at no point are you required as a bodybuilder to perform a competition based on strength). Additionally, bodybuilders need less fatigue and more recovery present at any given time (outside of the actual training sessions) when compared to strength athletes.

So here's what I've come up with…
• The general layout of the program will be to train upper body twice per week and lower body twice per week (so, we'll be providing double the training stimulus of typical one bodypart per day programs). The workouts will be fairly intense, heavy on free weight compound exercises, lower volume (per workout, and drastically lower volume per bodypart), and higher frequency than normal bodybuilding workouts. (Now, again, this is individual). Some of you won't be able to handle this amount of frequency yet, because your fitness level sucks. Some powerlifters, OLY lifters, and other strength athletes train up to 20 or 30 times each week (and most of them a minimum of 10 times per week) because their fitness level is so high. – If you find this level of frequency is too high, shorten the loading period and lengthen the recovery period, at first. Or, reduce the frequency to training three times per week, on a Mon, Wed, Fri, scheme, etc. – until your preparedness is increased, and your body can handle the frequency.)
The real difference is in failure and periodization (this is so each body part can be trained twice per week as opposed to only once)…
• No exercise should be taken to failure when using submaximal reps, however, all exercises should be taken to within one or two reps of failure by the final set of the exercise. If muscular failure is reached, there is no way you can train with an increased frequency without overtraining.
• Periodization will be individual to the lifter. However, for the sake of this program a 3-week period of loading followed by one week of recovery is given. (Additionally, if one isn't fully recovered after the one week recovery period, and fatigue still builds, increase the recovery period to two weeks, or have a "recovery month" every 4 or 5 months where you'll have one week of loading and three weeks of recovery during that month to allow your body to fully recover.)
• Progressive Overload is absolutely imperative in every exercise, making sure that load or reps are increased, or that rest periods are decreased to keep intensity high (during loading phases). (Of course, during the recovery phases, if volume is lowered, and frequency reduced slightly, then intensity can and should still be kept high, although the load should be reduced just slightly (approx. 10%) as there is no reason to attempt to set records through progressive overload during this time of recovery.)
• Many different rep ranges will be used. I am partial to the use of rep ranges in the 3-10 range, as it tends to give the lifter a great balance of extreme muscle thickness (like the look of a bodybuilder with a powerlifting background) as well as great neural efficiency.
A. Use of Neural Efficiency (as well as some Myofibral Hypertrophy) occurs in rep ranges of 1-3. (Neural Efficiency increases the percentage of motor units that can be activated at any given time. There is little to no effect on size but increases strength will be great. Little to no protein turnover occurs in this rep range as load is too high and mechanical work is too low.)
B. Mostly Myofibral and Sarcomere Hypertrophy and very little Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy occur with rep ranges of 3-5. (Sarcomere hypertrophy increases contractile proteins in muscle thereby increasing strength directly and also size. Book knowledge suggests that growth here will be mostly myofibral/ sarcomere hypertrophy and will be accompanied with strength gains in other rep ranges and improvements in neural efficiency. Therefore this is perhaps the best rep range for increasing strength. Better balance of load / work done for hypertrophy so no surprises there.)
C. Myofibral, Sarcomere, and Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy (lots of growth as well strength gain within this rep range with little transfer to 1rm) occur with rep ranges of 5-10. (Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy does not directly increase strength but can affect it by increasing tendon angle at the attachment - but of course it increases size.)
D. Some Sarcoplasmic with little Myofibral and Sarcomere Hypertrophy occur in rep ranges of 10-15. (More fatigue and a greater extent of waste products are associated with this rep range. Possible increase in capillary density.)
E. Capillary density increases with little Sarcoplasmic growth with rep ranges above 15. (Muscle endurace begins to become a factor (but who needs that?). Also, waste products are intense – lactic acid buildup to the point of making some individuals sick.)
Here's the breakdown:
Session A (Monday):

* (-)Low Incline Barbell Press/ Closegrip/ 5 Board Closegrip
Dips (Low Chest Dips Followed by one set of Tricep Dips)
Dumbell Extensions
(-)Seated Military Press
Dumbell Overhead Press
Barbell Rows
(-)Pulldowns
Upright Rows
(-)Barbell Curls
Dumbell Curls
Forearms (one superset of wrist curls, reverse wrist curls, and twists)

Session B (Thursday):

(-)Decline Dumbell Press
Flat Flys
*Push Press
(-)Pullups
Low Cable Rows
Lateral Raises (rear, followed by side), Rotator Work (front, side, and rear)
Skull Crushers
(-)Barbell Curls
(-)Pushdowns
Hammer Curls
Forearms (one superset)

Lower Body:

Glutes
Hamstrings
Quads
Calves
Lower Back
Traps
Abs, Obliques

Session C (Tuesday):

*Squats
*Goodmornings
*Cleans
Hack Squats (Old school barbell style are my favorite)
Straight Leg Deadlifts
Calves
Reverse Hypers
Abdominals
Obliques

Session D (Friday):

Squats (lighter)
*Deadlifts/ Trap Shrugs
Front Squats
Glute/Ham/Calf Raises
Donkey Calves
Reverse Hypers
Abdominals
Obliques

Here's the spreadsheet layout of the program set up on an 8 week periodization schedule; 3 weeks of loading, followed by a week of deloading, followed by three more weeks of loading, followed by another week of deloading...

NOTE PLEASE SEE ACTUAL DOCUMENT FOR SPREADSHEET

• Every eight weeks, the exercises with an asterisk (*) should be performed to their respective 1RM (rotate the weeks that you are maxing out on each exercise so that you don't find yourself maxing out on multiple exercises in one workout.) (The reason for maxing out on certain exercises is to increase neural efficiency as well as myofibral hypertrophy).
• Mild use of eccentrics during loading weeks (one or two reps at the end of the last set, occasionally) can be used for the exercises marked with a (-) (This is because tension is increased with eccentrics due to the fact that fewer MUs are recruited, and therefore more tension is put on each individual recruited MU. With added tension comes additional protein degradation and therefore a greater degree of hypertrophy during the recovery period.)
• Exercises with an asterisk (*) should be performed explosively, while exercises WITHOUT an asterisk (*) should be performed in a controlled, comfortable manner, but not superslow.
• Every six weeks, perform squats in session D with 2 sets of 20 reps for increased lactic acid threshold and capillary density. (and it's just a good overall shock to the system.)
• Every six weeks, an entire week will be performed with lower load and higher reps than normal (this is to allow for capillary density to increase, connective tissue strengthening, additional sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and increased lactic acid threshold) and every six weeks a heavier load and lower reps than normal (for increased neural efficiency and myofibral hypertrophy) will be performed.
• Stretch following each exercise session to help aid in recovery and possibly induce hyperplasia (the exception is to stretch each bodypart immediately after its last exercise in Upper Body Session A).
• Intense rest and recovery techniques should be utilized on a daily basis (10 min. cardio blasts, ultra-light load high rep work for flooding an area with blood 24 hours after working that area, contrast showers, massage, water consumption, stretching, etc. – although, occasionally these should be avoided to allow the body to respond to a higher state of fatigue.)
• Concentric-Only work should also be utilized for increases in preparedness, general recovery, and additional means of quality training and weight gain without fatigue – good choices would be sled dragging, medicine ball throws, wheel-barrow walking, etc. These extra workouts should be performed approximately 6-12 hours following training and according to the preparedness of the individual lifter. (However, these are great ways to build preparedness/fitness with very little fatigue buildup.)
• Do the required sets and reps even if you are still a little sore from the previous workout. (Now, if you have a horrible case of DOMS, this is a different story – but that most likely means you are training much too close to muscular failure than needed).
• First of all, change up this program so it works best for you. The one thing I hate about most programs is that the author says to follow his program to a tee or you won't gain a pound. Everyone is different with different needs; so as long as you are following the two factor theory, and know what you are doing, adapt this program to fit your needs. (In saying that, don't bastardize the program. It is well put together and will put solid mass on your body in a relatively short amount of time. The exercises have been carefully chosen, so if you change the exercises at all, make damn sure you know exactly what you are doing; i.e. - don't substitute an anterior deltoid exercise for a medial deltoid exercise just "because they both work the shoulders." This would be a major mistake. Keep the balance there.
• Workouts should be kept brief (about 1 hour). Get in there and get out. Additionally, working smaller, antagonistic bodyparts together can be beneficial. (i.e. – during barbell curls, instead of resting for a couple minutes between sets, do sets of tricep pushdowns.)
• You must continually adapt your workout by changing rep schemes, rest periods, volume, intensity, etc. (occasionally changing an exercise or two) in order to avoid accommodation by the body.
• Chest and Tricep exercises can be left to the descretion of the lifter. Pick exercises you like, but make sure you pick compound exercises, as well as exercises that work your weak areas. (In saying that, I have come up with a very well-rounded chest and tricep routine)
• Incline Barbell press should be performed with a wide grip, elbows out. Closegrip and 5 Board should be performed with close grip and elbows in. (5 board press is where you glue or nail 5 2"x6" boards togther (about 18" long) and bench press with someone holding the boards on your chest. The range of motion is short (3-4 inches probably), but the strength of the triceps and elbow joint explode!)
• I view Incline Barbell Press, Close-grip bench, and 5 Board press as one exercise that basically works both the chest and the triceps simultaneously. The lifter starts with 3 sets of Inclines, and then finishes off with a set of close-grips and a set of 5 board.
• Chest Dips and Tricep Dips are also viewed as one exercise that works both the chest and triceps. Start with 2 sets of deep chest dips, and finish with a set of triceps dips, where you only perform the upper part of the dip.
• You can substitute pull-throughs for reverse hypers if you don't have access to a reverse hyper machine. (if you don't know what a pull-through or a reverse hyper is, go to www.elitefts.com and check the "ask Dave" section, and go to the FAQ. You'll find a description there. Additional descriptions are http://www.t-mag.com/articles/182squat2.html
• Glute/ Ham raises are a must. (If you don't have access to a glute ham machine, go to http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/226rene.html and find out how!)
• Work forearms any way you want to. The given set and rep scheme is what I use more for prehab because I struggle with tendonitis.
• Barbell Rows are best by "starting with the bar on the floor every single rep. Your middle back will have slight bend to it. You pull the bar off the floor quickly with the arms, and by a powerful arch of your middle back. You finish by touching the bar to your upper stomach or middle stomach. At no time is there any movement of the hips or knees, no hip extension at all, all that bends is the middle back and the shoulders and elbows. This is hard to do and you have to have good muscular control to do it, or you'll end up straightening up at the hips along with the arching of the back. But if you can master doing them this way you will get a big back. This works because the lats actually extend (arch) the middle back in addition to other functions, just like with glute-ham extensions compared to leg curls…you always get a stronger contraction when you move both the origin and insertion of a muscle, flexing it from both ends so to speak. The bar returns to the floor after each rep. The bent row is actually best done as an explosive movement and the bar is moved fast." (JS)
• Pullups are to be done to failure, but not absolute muscular failure. At 260 pounds I can't do very many, so I just do them until I can't complete another full rep, and then I stop.
• Rotator work is given purely as prehab for myself. I use what is called a shoulder horn for this work, so I don't tear my rotator cuff up when handling heavy weight during bench press.
• For squats, I squat with a wide stance, and sit way back, which tends to put the emphasis on my glutes and hamstrings more so than my quads. I find that greater overall leg development is achieved by squatting in this manner. If you are purely a quad squatter, you most likely won't need an additional quad exercise.


article
 
Top Bottom