Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kane
Is it just me or does this routine seem like ALOT of volume...I'm not an expert by any means, but 3 failure sets for each exercise seems a bit off. And the rep ranges are wierd too, 6-10, then 3-5, then 11-15...that seems pretty odd to me, 11-15, then 6-10, then 3-5 seems like it would make more sense to me  |
That is based on this from the full-length article.
Quote:
|
Given the proper form is used with each repetition- (1.5 seconds for the positive/expolsive stroke) and (2 seconds for the controlled negative), then the Type 2-"A" fibers will be stimulated by hitting failure with a weight that allows for the performance of 11-15 reps. Type 2-"B" fibers will be targeted by hitting muscular failure in the 6-10 rep range. Type 2-"C" fibers get nailed their hardest when failure is reached between 3-5 repetitions. Simply said, the ("A" fibers) work their hardest under a time load of ( 40-60 seconds). (B fibers) responds best to a time under load of (20-39 seconds). (C fibers) get nailed when it takes (1-19 seconds) to complete a set).
|
This is not the worst think I've ever seen but it is based on so many "assumptions" disguised as scientific fact that I don't know where to begin. The main goal seems to be "maximum intensity" but this ridiculous theory that muscle fiber rectuitment has little or no overlap is just silly.
It obviously puts the most importance on "2B", secondary on "2c", whatever they are, and third on "2A". It also assumes that everybody will recover right back to full intensity in 3 minutes based on the misinformation I mentioned above (we all have different recovery rates and always waiting 3 minutes is not a prerequisite for success), and that therefore all these different fibers will be hit with the utmost intensity. It also assumes that failure always generates maximum intesity with every trainee and therefore maximum stimulation. I could be wrong, but I don't believe this is always the case.
It also assumes that failure is necessary to "target" a muscle fiber. Which it is not. I'm not saying that failure is not a useful tool, but it is only that, a tool. It is not a prerequisite for hypertophy. Going to near failure on the first two and to momentary failure on the last is likely to be just as effective especially since it will allow you to avoid CNS overtraining and perhaps have more frequency which not everyone will be able to keep up on this program. But, like you, Kane, I am not an expert.
And as you said it seems like that would lead to overtraining. Well, the author also assumes that everyone's CNS will recover in two days or something like that. The author goes on to say that the body adapts to anything we throw at it in three weeks. Again, we know that is not true, and how long it takes your body to adapt to a certain protocol is based on many factors, one of them being training experience.
The original article was way too long and went on and on, and I got really disgusted with all the misinformation, so I didn't read all the ins and outs of it. It certainly doesn't seem like anything magical to me and when someone makes one untrue or dumb statement that makes the whole thing suspect to me.
If you look at this as more like an upper lower split then the volume does seem way high.
If I was to ignore the weird split and think of an upper/lower split then three sets per exercise isn't so much. But three sets to failure with that frequency? And the leg and back day?
But of course it is "not just another routine" it is time tested, backed up by scientific evidence (lol) and works for everyone. So there you go. You may as well give it a go, Kane. It's pretty darn similar to the stuff I started out doing, which worked at first of course but at a very low level in terms of gain. I actually found faster gains later on when I got away from the too much failure too often way of doing things. But everyone's different.