Volume/Intensity/Frequency

  • Thread starter Thread starter iron addict
  • Start date Start date
I

iron addict

Guest
I am going into this discussion with the assumption that the trainee has diet, supplementation, sleep, and stress in order. If not, the perfect routine is not going to be effective anyway. Many people go to the gym each week employing workout programs that look flashy on paper, but fail to deliver results. Why? Simply because the volume is not matched correctly to the intensity, and/or the frequency is not matched to the overall loading.

Why do so many lifters have a mis-match? More often than not it?s because they are trying to do something outside their current ability of recovery/work capacity. An important point to keep in mind is that the loading must be in tune with the lifters CURRENT state of experience. Most beginners want to do advanced routines and almost all intermediates DO advanced and highly advanced routines long before they are ready for them. Before going on I want to take a moment to lay out what I believe is important with overall loading schemes.

1. Volume should be as high as possible while STILL PROVIDING FAST STRENGTH INCREASES. This rule can be thrown out the window by extremely advanced lifters that already are very big and strong and want to do volume work purely for size. As a general rule, the higher the volume goes, to an extent, the slower strength gains accrue. This is not a hard and fast rule, but it applies to the vast majority in my experience. Don?t mis-read that as ?Iron Addict likes high volume training?. I like it as high as can be done while still making fast strength gains, and for many lifters, that will be quite low volume.

2. Intensity should be matched to the volume. The more sets you do, the lower the intensity will be if you are to be successful. High volume and high intensity are mutually exclusive. No one with a functioning brain does 20 sets a bodypart to failure. If you use to failure, and beyond failure techniques, your volume will be low by necessity. Most to failure systems use one or two work sets per lift to failure, and few lifts (often one) per bodypart. Many lifters take a large number of sets to failure each workout and frankly, they are usually guys with great genetics, or lifters that are not making much progress and frustrated.

3. Frequency should be as often as possible WHILE STILL RECOVERING AND MAKING SOLID PROGRESS ON STRENGTH AND SIZE GAINS. Obviously the more often you can train/recover/grow and train again, the faster you will reach your goal. That said, training at a rate that rarely or never allows progress is fools work, and many of you are simply fools.

How to match these three up in a format that results in consistent progress is a constant source of frustration to many lifters. While there are no hard and fast rules owing to the wide disparity of genetics and experience, levels here are some guidelines to help you make the right choices when programming your training. And please keep that last statement in mind. Designing workout programs should have ?programming in mind?. Most people just do ?routines? with no thought of what comes next.

I will address intensity first since it is the simplest aspect of the three in program design. While it is a very simple classification and doesn?t cover all levels of intensity, I will go out on a limb and lay down the four basic categories used by the majority of lifters on their WORK sets.

1. Multiple reps short of failure. This is done most frequently with ramped loading (predetermined often) routines, and with medium-high volume loading. A couple examples are the first few sets of a lift of a trainee that is doing 16-20 sets a bodypart. The first few sets are USUALLY a few reps short of failure and either the weight is increases, or the same weight is used and as more sets are done fatigue sets in and increases the difficulty level. This is also done with lower volume routines where the weight is static for all sets. Such as doing 4 x 8 with the same weight. The first two sets are easy, the third hard, the last, almost all-out. 10 x 10?s are done with very sub-maximal weights and again fatigue over the course of many sets is the goal

5 x 5?s are done with sub-maximal weights in most cases. An example of a 300 lb bencher might look like:

150
185
225
265
300 the following week the sub-maximal weights go up, as do the last top set.

2. One rep short of failure. This is a very productive way to train that is still plenty intense, but doesn?t include the CNS fatigue most often accrued when doing sets to failure. It is often done in conjunction with sets done at lower intensity (multiple reps short of failure) and then the last work set is done one rep short of failure. In other words, you lift until you know that if you attempted the last rep it wouldn?t go. That is how I structure the majority of my routines and it allows a lot more tonnage and workload without too much CNS fatigue.
3. To failure training. This is where your work sets are taken to the point of absolute failure where try as you might, you cannot complete another rep and don?t quit until you have attempted the impossible?getting the weight up. This is a popular way to train and can be effective. The downsides are that it allows very little workload/tonnage to be completed. The can be both a blessing and a curse. The good side is since volume is so low many people recover very well and strength gains are consistent. The down sides are that many people?s CNS just do not tolerate it well and CNS is dampened a LOT unless frequency is very infrequent. Also since the tonnage is so low, SOME people do not build as much size as if the volume were higher.
4. Beyond failure training. This is where after a point of failure has been reached more work is done. Examples are forced reps where your training partner gives you JUST enough help to allow you to complete more reps after failure has been reached, rest-pause, and drop sets. Advantages are extremely compressed workload, usually one set a bodypart, very good growth stimulation with increased tonnage compared to the single set to failure method. Downsides are that it is EXTREMELY taxing on CNS.

That was a brief GENERALITY of how sets are typically performed but certainly doesn?t cover it all. What do I prefer? A combination of methods one and two. Doing a few sub-maximal sets, then, one-two sets taken to one short of failure. This allows more workload without excessive CNS fatigue, but still has enough intensity. I USED to use a LOT of to failure training and beyond failure training with both myself and training clients, but after slowly making the switch to the method just mentioned results have been MUCH better by a huge margin. And this isn?t just a small sampling; I work with about 70 clients at a time. As a side note, I don?t consider accidentally ?missing? a very low rep attempt failure, as in 1 to 3 rep sets of max-effort work a per prescribed by WSB.

If you want to use to failure/beyond techniques I would recommend a ?hardgainer? style routine with very few lifts, two-three days a week in the gym, and once a week per body-part if you are a beginner-intermediate level lifter. If you are ADVANCED use Dante?s (DC/Doggcrap) system. It is extremely well thought out, scalable to your needs, and takes into account many of the shortcomings of other high intensity systems and works EXTREMELY well?GREAT SYSTEM.

The workload needs to match your CURRENT experience level and work capacity. For beginners with less than 1-2 years experience, OR those that have always done everything wrong and are still at beginner strength levels after many years of training the volume should be relatively low. There are two primary schools of thought usually promoted. One line of thinking is that the beginner simply cannot generate enough intensity to do much damage so a mid volume, high frequency routine is the way to go. This usually translates into a full body 3 times a week routine. This can work extremely well. But??if it doesn?t, don?t keep doing something that doesn?t work.

Beginners usually have pretty horrible work capacity and full body 3 times a week beats the hell out of guys and girls that are totally out of shape and have poor CNS recovery. The other school of thought is that beginner?s need very little workload to grow well, and I am of this school of thought. I would rather start a beginner low and add workload as they progress. There is the old saying that ?anything works for beginners? and that is only true to a point. Put a beginner on Arnolds advanced volume routine and many will get smaller and weaker every week. So?.I believe starting low and working up over time accomplishes a couple very important things. It gets the trainee acclimated to lifting without beating them up so bad they quit, and allows consistent progress. And please keep in mind that at the beginner level strength gains should be pretty damn linear. If you are not getting stronger pretty much every week at this stage of the game you are doing something incredibly wrong.

Intermediates can get by with any amount of workload their bodies can handle and still recover from. At this stage, it often gets easy to lose sight of the fact that strength gains are still paramount. What generally happens is the lifter has made some good progress and has built up a good amount of strength. He is feeling good about himself, but knows he still isn?t near big enough. Scanning the muscle mags and lifting forums he looks at the stuff the pro?s and other BIG-BOYS are doing and decides that is the answer. He switches to very high volume and often high frequency and BAM! He makes a good jump is size! Then?..since he doesn?t understand that the gains he got were mostly from Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy which occurs from an increase in the non-contractile cellular fluid in the muscle he thinks he has his long term training needs covered.

But?.the sarcoplasma consists of nutrients, glycogen, capillaries, and mitochondria proliferation. It ISN?T contractile protein and to make contractile protein go up the rep ranges should probably be lower than what our hero is using, and with the workload having so much overall tonnage strength gains come VERY S-L-O-W-L-Y. Since strength isn?t going up what will he have to do to progress? Well more volume of course. But since he is already doing 16 sets a bodypart what next? 24? 30? Make sense? What the intermediate level needs is something that provides a balance of strength with enough volume/tonnage for better hypertrophy work than training purely for strength. This usually equates to a mid-volume routine with at least some of the work in the 1-6 rep range and higher reps for other lifts in the program.

Advanced lifters? At this stage of the game pretty much anything goes and if you are TRULY advanced you know better than anyone what works best for you or you wouldn?t have got this far. No need to make generalizations at this point.

As far as frequency is concerned, again what you want is as frequent as possible while still allowing fast progress. The variables here can be put in a lot of various sequences, but they still don?t vary too much. Again, here are more generalities that will cover a lot of ground, but will still be far from including every option are:

1. VERY low frequency, as in Mike Mentzer, John Little, Pete Sisco?s recommendations. These range as low as taking three-four weeks to hit all bodyparts. WAY too low IMO

2. Once every 9-12 days. These formats can work very well for extreme hardgainers, and even easy gainers as a de-load.

3. Once a week.

4. Once every 5 days. A favorite of mine, and something Charles Poliquin has recommended a lot.

5. Twice a week.

6. Three times a week.

7. Schedules that have multiple frequency ranges dependent on the bodypart being trained based on recovery, or need to specialize.

My preference for MOST trainees that have at least average recovery is once every 5 days setup on an upper/lower split that rotates. In other words:

Monday
Chest/shoulders/Triceps

Wednesday
Back/Biceps/legs/abs

Friday
Chest/shoulders/Triceps

Monday
Back/Biceps/legs/abs

Wednesday
Chest/shoulders/Triceps

Friday
Back/Biceps/legs/abs

If the trainee can recover from it, I put them on a 4 day a week program hitting everything 2 x a week.

Hardgainers, both real and functional are usually put on a once a week per bodypart routine until we can get their metabolic issues addresses and work on getting their work capacity up.

Advanced lifters can be put on anything under the sun they can recover from including waved volume, Rest-Pause, High volume strength based templates too, well, you get the idea, anything can go at that stage as long as it is still within their ability to tolerate the workload and suited to their goals.

A brief discussion about easy-gainers, average lifters, and hardgainers/extreme hardgainers is in order. I have had 250 lb fairly lean lifters with 19 inch arms after two and a half years training tell me they were hardgainers. Why? Because their shoulders didn?t grow fast, or their lats weren?t thick enough?BULLSHIT, these guys got it going on, and frankly, everyone likes to believe that their dedication was the prime reason for their success. Yes, it is a HUGE factor, but plenty of guys give their all 24/7 and just don?t get there that fast, or even at all.

Easy gainers are simple and a pleasure to work with. Provided they are consistent with diet and training they grow very well and results are very brisk compared to most lifters results.

Most lifters fall in the average range of bodybuilding/powerlifting potential. An educated guess is that 60-65% of the lifters have about average predisposition for lifting

A large percentage of the ?hardgainers? are only hardgainers because they do so much wrong (a full length article to follow). And many are truly hardgainers due to genetics and metabolic disorders. These guys MUST approach their training different.

There are no hard and fast rules that determine who is and isn?t in which category. After doing this for over ten years I can usually make a very accurate estimate after reading a questionnaire and asking a few questions.

Hope that made sense, and makes it a bit easier when deciding what to do next in your pursuit of the physique and strength levels you dream of.

Stay tuned for the next installment!

Iron Addict
 
What's the benefit of doing more volume than required to still make fast strength gains? I would like to see the science behind it other than a blank quote of "It's what works best." Seems to me it would do nothing but require more time be taken to recover between workouts.

Then again, there is no way I could repeat my level of intensity that often in any one given training situation to even begin to think about doing more than one "Serious" set, or laughably - more than one exercise per bodypart. I'm just curious why it's felt that volume must be upregulated and if the question has ever come up:

"If you are constantly using more than one set, how do you know that one set wouldn't be more productive?"

The same could be said that "If you use one set, how do you know two wouldn't be better" and my answer is because my one set BARELY allows me to recover in time to train again "Per schedule" and even if my strength gains were the same, I highly doubt I could train each bodypart as frequently as I do if I were to use any more volume. Secondly, if I am already creating an adaptive response to grow larger and stronger, doing mroe damage than what was required to create that effect would be counterproductive in terms of "Net" muscular gain.

My one set as it is, is a set to failure in the 5-9 rep range + two rest pause period, getting as many more reps as I can, and then one final hold/negative with roughly 25% more weight than I had used for positive failure.. . there's no way in hell I could do that twice per bodypart in one day, and honestly - if anyone could - they did something wrong or didn't give it their all.
 
Well, I can tell you that I was trained by Mike Mentzer, mr one set himself, and I have used one set training extrensively with training clients back when I did know any better and it seemed a step up from volume. I work with about 70 people at a time with all levels of recovery/work capacity from absolute genetic trash bags, to people with superior genetics. Some people do need very low volume. but if they can get away with more volume they will generally make faster gains and will get bigger in the process. There is nothing wrong with single set training if it works for you. But in the bodybuilding and strength community who really uses it? Not too many, because more tonnage equates to bigger stronger lifters. DC's system is a very well thought out single set system. But surely not for everyone.

Muscle recovers pretty fast CNS does not, of course you cannot do multiple RP sets and recover. But you sure could do a lot more sets a BIT short of failure and recover fine.

As to your statement:

"If you are constantly using more than one set, how do you know that one set wouldn't be more productive?"

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Try it both ways. Most people do better on multiple sets and that is why most people do multiple set training. Pretty simple.

IA
 
Well, I can tell you that I was trained by Mike Mentzer, mr one set himself, and I have used one set training extrensively with training clients back when I did know any better and it seemed a step up from volume. I work with about 70 people at a time with all levels of recovery/work capacity from absolute genetic trash bags, to people with superior genetics. Some people do need very low volume. but if they can get away with more volume they will generally make faster gains and will get bigger in the process. There is nothing wrong with single set training if it works for you. But in the bodybuilding and strength community who really uses it? Not too many, because more tonnage equates to bigger stronger lifters. DC's system is a very well thought out single set system. But surely not for everyone.

Muscle recovers pretty fast CNS does not, of course you cannot do multiple RP sets and recover. But you sure could do a lot more sets a BIT short of failure and recover fine.

As to your statement:

"If you are constantly using more than one set, how do you know that one set wouldn't be more productive?"

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Try it both ways. Most people do better on multiple sets and that is why most people do multiple set training. Pretty simple.

IA
 
iron addict said:
Well, I can tell you that I was trained by Mike Mentzer, mr one set himself, and I have used one set training extrensively with training clients back when I did know any better and it seemed a step up from volume. I work with about 70 people at a time with all levels of recovery/work capacity from absolute genetic trash bags, to people with superior genetics. Some people do need very low volume. but if they can get away with more volume they will generally make faster gains and will get bigger in the process. There is nothing wrong with single set training if it works for you. But in the bodybuilding and strength community who really uses it? Not too many, because more tonnage equates to bigger stronger lifters. DC's system is a very well thought out single set system. But surely not for everyone.

Muscle recovers pretty fast CNS does not, of course you cannot do multiple RP sets and recover. But you sure could do a lot more sets a BIT short of failure and recover fine.

As to your statement:

"If you are constantly using more than one set, how do you know that one set wouldn't be more productive?"

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Try it both ways. Most people do better on multiple sets and that is why most people do multiple set training. Pretty simple.

IA



I've been in the game a long time and I've yet to see a so-called single set bodybuilding trainee? I don't believe that a single set does shit for anyone as far as bodybuilding goals are desired. It may work for increases in strength for a limited peroid of time.
 
Well lifts, here's a 263 lb+, 6'0 DC/HD trainee, and I maintain a BF percentage below 10-15% year round. I'm also someone who utilizes the short cycles which on the steroid board where said to be completely ineffective and worthless. I guess I just piss in everyone's wheaties, huh? LOL.

As far as working for a limited period of time, that's completely untrue. I've trained this way for years, and people in my area had begun to adapt my training style a for years ago with except results themselves. If you "Stall" in strength on any given lift, change the exercise you do for that area, and come back to the old one a few months down the road. Only recently have I discussed my cycling methods, but those seem to be catching on as well, with excellent effectiveness.

IA - In response to the volume, if you are having you trainee's stop just short of failure, how can you measure the workload in an accurate manner? What I suppose the real question is, how can you rest assured that you are making approximately the same assualt on your body's CNS and Musculature every time, when you don't have an effective means of measuring intensity? Secondly, how do you go about conducting an "Experiment" between minimum volume and higher volume if you don't have an accurate way of measuring that said intensity applied to the multiple working sets?

Don't get me wrong - if this system is working out for you, more power to you. I just don't understand the principles on which it was constructed.
 
xander_cage said:
Well lifts, here's a 263 lb+, 6'0 DC/HD trainee, and I maintain a BF percentage below 10-15% year round. I'm also someone who utilizes the short cycles which on the steroid board where said to be completely ineffective and worthless. I guess I just piss in everyone's wheaties, huh? LOL.

As far as working for a limited period of time, that's completely untrue. I've trained this way for years, and people in my area had begun to adapt my training style a for years ago with except results themselves. If you "Stall" in strength on any given lift, change the exercise you do for that area, and come back to the old one a few months down the road. Only recently have I discussed my cycling methods, but those seem to be catching on as well, with excellent effectiveness.

IA - In response to the volume, if you are having you trainee's stop just short of failure, how can you measure the workload in an accurate manner? What I suppose the real question is, how can you rest assured that you are making approximately the same assualt on your body's CNS and Musculature every time, when you don't have an effective means of measuring intensity? Secondly, how do you go about conducting an "Experiment" between minimum volume and higher volume if you don't have an accurate way of measuring that said intensity applied to the multiple working sets?

Don't get me wrong - if this system is working out for you, more power to you. I just don't understand the principles on which it was constructed.



Post some pics bro, imo 15% is on the chubby side. The guy in the apt. below me maintains a bodyweight of over 500lbs on a 6 foot 2 frame and does zero sets per bodypart per week... I would rather not look like him though:)
 
xander_cage said:
IA - In response to the volume, if you are having you trainee's stop just short of failure, how can you measure the workload in an accurate manner? What I suppose the real question is, how can you rest assured that you are making approximately the same assualt on your body's CNS and Musculature every time, when you don't have an effective means of measuring intensity? Secondly, how do you go about conducting an "Experiment" between minimum volume and higher volume if you don't have an accurate way of measuring that said intensity applied to the multiple working sets?

Don't get me wrong - if this system is working out for you, more power to you. I just don't understand the principles on which it was constructed.

I am always amazed when people ask this question. Pretty simple, if last week you did 365 x 8 at one rep short of failure and this week you did 370 one rep short of failure you got stronger--duh. I am not sure why people believe that that last rep is the only determinant.

The principles it is founded on is what almost the entire strength community uses outside a small sub-culture in BB'ing that beleives to failure is the only way to go.

Glad DC training is working for you, it is an AWESOME system as I have always clearly stated. Just not for everyone.

IA
 
Well, allow me to keep the amazment going for you then... because it's not all that amazing to me just yet.

Let's use your example.

Week 1: 365x8 stopping before failure
Week 2: 370x8 stopping before failure

Since the trainee stopped before failure, how can you determine he couldn't have done 365x10 on week 1, and actually made no progress what so ever by week 2, because he could have been well capable of it during week 1? How do you know he couldn't have done 370x8 on week 1 going to failure - thereby making less progess than he could of by creating the greatest stimulis? How do you judge what is one rep short of failure? Discomfort? Movitation? Prehaps you use the very scientific magic 8 ball? :)

You speak of principles, but you have yet to validate that creating more muscular damage beyond what is required to stimulate growth intitally through the use of multiple sets, will somehow stimulate more growth in a very set period of time before atrohpy begins to occur via the bodies natural protein turnover. Can you provide any such information??? Can you specifically state as fact that the more damage you create than what is minimally required will net more muscular growth before the next due training phase?

Are you going on to suggest that be increasing the amount of time your body takes just to repair previous damage before it can further grow (what we are after), hence forth reducing the time you allow for an accumulation of tissue because of the set period between training intervals - the better??? I can provide you evidence that it is simply unfounded in the scientific and medical community, because of how the body heals. Here are some studies for you to explore while you maybe further think over your answer:

1) Clarkson, PM, Nosaka, K. Muscle function after exercise-induced muscle damage and rapid adaptation. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Vol.24, No.5, 512-20, 1992

2) Clarkson, PM, Tremblay, I. Exercise-induced muscle damage, repair and adaptation in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology. Vol.65, No.1, 1-6, 1988

3) Friden, J.,et al Myofibrillar damage following intense eccentric exercise in man. International Journal of Sports Medicine. Vol.24, No.3, 170-176,1983

4) Golden, CL, Dudley, GA., Strength after bouts of eccentric or concentric actions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Vol.24, No.8, 926-33, 1992

5) Howell, JN, Chleboun,G., Muscle stiffness, strength loss, swelling and soreness following exercise-induced injury to humans. Journal of Physiology 464, 183-96, 1993

6) Jones, DA, Newham, JM., et al, Experimental human muscle damage: morphological changes in relation to other indices of damage. Journal of Physiology 375, 435-48, 1986

7) Mishra, DK, Friden, J., et al Anti-inflammatory medication after muscle injury. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 77-A, No.10, 1510-19, 1995 8) Newman, DJ, Jones, DA., Repeated high-force eccentric exercise: effects on muscle pain and damage. Journal of Applied Physiology Vol.4, No.63, 1381-86, 1987

9) Smith, LL. Acute inflammation: the underlying mechanism in delayed onset muscle soreness? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Vol. 23, No.5, 542-51, 1991

10) Tiidus, PM, Ianuzzo, DC., Effects of intensity and duration of muscular exercise on delayed soreness and serum enzyme activities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Vol. 15, No.6, 461-5, 1983


Science backs the conclusions of others that I speak on. DC has it's faults, which is why I never state I'm strictly a DC trainer, however it is still based in some solid proveable, and as you can see, demonstratable science. I'm not making this an attack - but as soon as you attempted to justify a question with the "Principles" line - I want to see the science behind them before I blindly accept them to contradict what science has already proven to be true. There are a lot of principles out there, but I'm interested in facts.
 
I like to do each set to positive failure no negs or forced reps as my aged joints just can't handle that type of stress any longer. I was always the type of person who reacted better however to higher volume. I have tried low volume training with less benefit. This is another one of those cases where what may work the very best for one maynot for another. By higher volume I mean medium sets not ultra high.
 
If you want to quote studies you are going to be fightng a losing battle. Not sure if you have done this before but I have and will not entertian doing it again. For every one you can throw up "proving" your point of view, I can throw up another disproving it.

Then I can simply ignore the fucking studies and go with the conclusion the ENTIRE strength training community has come to including the eastern bloc countries that spent fortunes studying the matter. And simpy put, outside of a small segment of bodybuilding, training too failure and beyond failure training is simply not used. It is not used in Olympic lifting where the countries state run lifting programs spend LOTS of money on research on what does and doesn't work. It is not used in powerlifting, it is not used by strength coaches that train athletes in a HUGE variety of sports including football, and MOST strongmen competitor don't use it. There is a mountain of research you have somehow overlooked as well as the fact that part and parcel the vast majority of bodybuilders don't use it.

And don't use the BS excuse that "well I'm a bodybuilder" not a strength athlete. We all lift weights to get stronger and bgger, not weaker and smaller.

And again, I am very fond of DC training. I use rest-pause training with SOME select training clients. Dante and myself used to co-moderate the forum on Animal's board when the "cycles on pennies" thread boosted Dante to his rise in popularity. It is a great system and works well for many, many people, but if you think it, or any other system is superior for all lifters based on your experience on how well it has worked for you, you are extremely short sighted.

If it works best for you, use, it, just know it doesn't work for everyone and many people do extremely poorly on to failure and beyond routines due to CNS fatigue. There is no "best" way to train for every lifter. As a trainer I use everything from extreme hardgainer routines (VERY low volume) to WSB, to high volume, and yes, I even train people using rest-pause routines. But one size surely does not fit all.

If one set gives you maximal size (and for some, it does) use it. But for others it doesn't work that way.

Tonnage DOES matter for many lifters. Who will be bigger the guy that does?

Hammer bench press (using hammer because RP routines are done on machines a lot)

365 x 8--RP to 15 Tonnage = 2920

Or the guy that does

Hammer Bench
325 x 8
345 x 8
355 x 8 tonnage = 8140

Incline Bench
275 x 8
295 x 8
315 x 8 tonnage = 7080

total tonnage = 15,220

Well the answer is both could work better dependent on the INDIVIDUAL lifter. But if you don't think the higher tonnage makes a big difference in size for SOME lifters, you would be wrong.

Iron Addict






xander_cage said:
Well, allow me to keep the amazment going for you then... because it's not all that amazing to me just yet.

Let's use your example.

Week 1: 365x8 stopping before failure
Week 2: 370x8 stopping before failure

Since the trainee stopped before failure, how can you determine he couldn't have done 365x10 on week 1, and actually made no progress what so ever by week 2, because he could have been well capable of it during week 1? How do you know he couldn't have done 370x8 on week 1 going to failure - thereby making less progess than he could of by creating the greatest stimulis? How do you judge what is one rep short of failure? Discomfort? Movitation? Prehaps you use the very scientific magic 8 ball? :)

You speak of principles, but you have yet to validate that creating more muscular damage beyond what is required to stimulate growth intitally through the use of multiple sets, will somehow stimulate more growth in a very set period of time before atrohpy begins to occur via the bodies natural protein turnover. Can you provide any such information??? Can you specifically state as fact that the more damage you create than what is minimally required will net more muscular growth before the next due training phase?

Are you going on to suggest that be increasing the amount of time your body takes just to repair previous damage before it can further grow (what we are after), hence forth reducing the time you allow for an accumulation of tissue because of the set period between training intervals - the better??? I can provide you evidence that it is simply unfounded in the scientific and medical community, because of how the body heals. Here are some studies for you to explore while you maybe further think over your answer:

1) Clarkson, PM, Nosaka, K. Muscle function after exercise-induced muscle damage and rapid adaptation. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Vol.24, No.5, 512-20, 1992

2) Clarkson, PM, Tremblay, I. Exercise-induced muscle damage, repair and adaptation in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology. Vol.65, No.1, 1-6, 1988

3) Friden, J.,et al Myofibrillar damage following intense eccentric exercise in man. International Journal of Sports Medicine. Vol.24, No.3, 170-176,1983

4) Golden, CL, Dudley, GA., Strength after bouts of eccentric or concentric actions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Vol.24, No.8, 926-33, 1992

5) Howell, JN, Chleboun,G., Muscle stiffness, strength loss, swelling and soreness following exercise-induced injury to humans. Journal of Physiology 464, 183-96, 1993

6) Jones, DA, Newham, JM., et al, Experimental human muscle damage: morphological changes in relation to other indices of damage. Journal of Physiology 375, 435-48, 1986

7) Mishra, DK, Friden, J., et al Anti-inflammatory medication after muscle injury. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 77-A, No.10, 1510-19, 1995 8) Newman, DJ, Jones, DA., Repeated high-force eccentric exercise: effects on muscle pain and damage. Journal of Applied Physiology Vol.4, No.63, 1381-86, 1987

9) Smith, LL. Acute inflammation: the underlying mechanism in delayed onset muscle soreness? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Vol. 23, No.5, 542-51, 1991

10) Tiidus, PM, Ianuzzo, DC., Effects of intensity and duration of muscular exercise on delayed soreness and serum enzyme activities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Vol. 15, No.6, 461-5, 1983


Science backs the conclusions of others that I speak on. DC has it's faults, which is why I never state I'm strictly a DC trainer, however it is still based in some solid proveable, and as you can see, demonstratable science. I'm not making this an attack - but as soon as you attempted to justify a question with the "Principles" line - I want to see the science behind them before I blindly accept them to contradict what science has already proven to be true. There are a lot of principles out there, but I'm interested in facts.
 
WOW - You've managed to take the science right out of trying to create a physiological effect, or muscle growth! That's amazing!!!

Studies - yes, irrelevant.
Science - Immaterial.
Psuedo-Science based on a numbers a game - Looks impressive, contains no fact, so that must be the answer. LOL.


Fine IronAddict, don't "do it", and as you can see - neither will I since as soon as medical science was brought up you ran away.

But to answer your simple minded question - the bigger guy will be the one that provides enough stimulation to cause response, but not enough to be overly damaging which will cause overtraining. Your "Tonnage" is nothing more than a game of "Look at the numbers, forget about facts and medical science."

If that was the case - why stop at 3 sets? Why not do 30 sets, but use far less weight to lift more total "Tonnage?" Why not 300? Why stop at 2, 3, 30 or 3000 if Tonnage is the manner in which you measure stimulation, because as you suggested - failure isn't required to accurately chart stimulation and progress, right??? LOL.

You have taken this from a field of investigation and turned it into a "Don't debate me" type joke. Have fun.
 
I've tried HIT and POF, I think they work for some time. IMO, for bodybuilding purposes multiple sets work better. IMO that's why periodization (systematic variation) seems a good idea, so we can have the best of both worlds.
 
I ran nowhere. Throwing studies up to "prove" a lifting system is superior to another is mental masterbation. I guess you have never played that lame ass game before. You throw up a study, I throw up a study, you throw up a study, I throw up a study. As someone that has been involved with lifting for 25 years now I have read enough studies to fill a few libraries. Most do NOT favor to failure training. Some do. So is any study going to be definative? Not in a million years.

All the eastern bloc conclusions were based on science. Ever read any?

Supertraining by Mel Siff is consdered by knowing strength coaches as the single best book on strength training. Go take a look what is said about failure training. BTW, it's not Mel's theories being pushed, but a summary of all the best eastern bloc science and experiences of strength coaches.

You are taking what a teeny segment of the lifting populace does and trying to make it "best" because it's what works best for YOU. Please tell everyone that has succeeded using non-failure methods they are totally wrong. Better yet, be just like Mike Mentzer and say they would be much better if they only trained one set failure.

Get it through your head there is no "best" way to train. Just a best way for each person. See the Olympia results? See the competotors? Only David Henry (who looks absolutely GREAT) uses single set to failure. I guess Jay and Ronny and Victor are all retarded because they are not doing only one set.

Iron Addict
 

New Posts

Trending

Back
Top