Whoa, whoa! You're calling the vast accumulated experience of strength and conditioning coaches anecdotal? Bro....
Anyone who thinks they can train someone based on scientific studies just hasn't had much experiece training people, I bet. I'll get into this more later but for right now let me say that I like science too but you are putting MUCH too much weight on studies.
Quote:
|
The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it.
|
I don't disagree with any of that except that it is a good example of that minute physiological detail I was talking about. You just can't base good programming solely on lab talk and what the scientific literature shows about recovery is only specifically true for the individuals that the study was done on. The athlete is not a close stagnate system. He is a dynamic one. I think that routines tending towared higher frequency are better, on that were in agreement.
Taking a week off of course is something everyone is going to need now and again. But the point of what I was saying is that you do not need time off in order to stave off CNS fatigue. You need relatively small alterations in intensity or total work. So the thing is the week off thing in HST and intensity cycling are not the same thing. Intensity cycling is based on the continuation of stegnth gains and since HST by it's own name is for hypertrophy only program strength continuation is not a consideration.
I will sum up my opinion on this very simple. It's all about progression. If you are progressing you are gaining. The program must ensure progression for whatever individual. Talking about these little details leaves a lot out. It doesn't say anything about the training modalitly. Depending on the training mode, it is doubtful whether someone could continue to progress on a 48 hours basis past the beginner stage. That doesn't mean he can't workout every 48 hours.
If you can progress in that way for a meaningful time period then recovery is taking place within that time period and metabolic fatigue is not building up. Metabolic fatigue is a function of the CNS so that's the CNS overtraining (potentially) you were speaking of. Recovery and fatigue are both part of adaptation so if you are able to progress this way then fatigue cannot be accumulating very much. Because if it were you would not be able to display those gains every 48 hours on a routine basis. Speaking of recovery of the muscles and CNS fatigue as if they are separate things just doesn't make much sense. Likewise it doesn't make sense to generalize all metabolic fatigue as overtraining because it is not.
Obviously a significant build up of fatigue is not very likely on HST. It looks simply at muscular adaptation and tries to base pure hypertrophic gains off that. A lot of people have said it is "based" on fitness-fatigue model because of this but I think that is poppy-cock and BH himself refutes this. There are a lot of drawbacks to this kind of training and that is what usually results form routines based around studies....something that is overly complicated and which continues to break down for each individual resulting in all sorts of discussion and "tweaking" of the program. Which is what you get with anything once you get past the "cookie-cutter" stage. So whats the difference?
Quote:
|
With the studies you can show what actually unquestioningly happened as X when Z was done.
|
No. You show that X happened with a particular set of trainees with similar training status when z was done. And not all of them. Just most of them.
Quote:
|
Joe says when he did workout A he gained a lot of muscle. Jack says workout B is the bomb. John swears by workout C. To me that's worthless. That's why you have all these different opinions and no consensus. Invariably and inevitably the last guy in the thread who doesn't want to fight says something like, "We're all different I guess." and of course this favorite of mine, "You have to find what works for you." So basically you have no answer. Then soon enough the question comes up again and we go back around the same pointless circle.
|
Sounds like you are looking for the best way. So you look at science. There is no best way. There are certain ways that work better than others and there are ways that will work better for a particualr person at a particular stage of training. But you will not find a best way.
Quote:
|
Science attempts to say, look, let's recreate the scenario and we'll all watch and see what happens. Why is that useless?? And if it's of little value as you purport than why is your opinion or anyone elses of any better value?? Why are we to believe an opinion and push the studies to the side?
|
Well the studies rarely recreate a real world scenario. The scenario is the scenario in the study. But I didn't say it's useless or of little value. But you seem to be going to the extreme end of basing everything on studies. I agree with the jist of a lot of what you are saying. I agree that studies are a piece of the puzzle.
They are usually nowhere near long term enough nor have a large enough sample to be as objective as you would have them be. Anytime studies attempt to look at larger samples for longer periods of time it fails. The studies most people quote represent a snapshot. But training is not a spapshot it is more like a moving picture.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should incorporate the info from studies into our thinking. But by you above post everyone should be doing 2 to 3 sets every 48 hours. Would that info have been the same if the training status of those involved was more advanced? NO.
Can everyone workout every 48 hours (obvioulsy with some weekends off or something). Yeah. Can everyone progress consistently every 48 hours? No way. It's two different things.
As far as me discounting studies I've either discussed or posted these studies myself ad infinitum. I didn't just jump off a turnip truck yesterday, you know
. I'll bet I've posted more studies than you
It's not new info to me and I am not saying it's wrong info. What I am saying is you are making broad generalized conclusions about it and that is wrong. I would encourage you to expand you thinking to some of those "opinions" your were talking about. Because unless were just talking about HST I doubt you would be able to apply all of this to a generalized audience very well.
Again I agree that full body programs are a good way to go for a vast majority. For most past the beginner stage some type of intensity variation within the weak is going to be necessary. The thing about recovery being the same regardless of intensity is cetainly untrue. That would mean that you could generalize recovery with higher workloads lower overall intensity and higher intensity lower workloads. But the recovery curve for these is markedly different. You can't really talk about intensity without considering volume or vice versa but to say that intensity has no effect on recovery in general makes no sense.
Likewise I don't understand the statement that intensity is not a requirement for strength gains. What does that mean? Intensity is a relative term. Are we saying that people can make strengh gains consistently at LOW intensities? Say below 70 to 75 percent. A novice could make some strength gains that way. But some high intensity work is going to be necessary in the long run for continued strength gains. I'm not exactly sure what you meant by your statement though.
If you can progress consistently every 48 hours then do it. But not everyone can continue to progress every 48 hours. So then we get into periodization and varying the intensity and we can STILL do better with full bodies. But an upper lower split could also be very effective for some people. But what has all this to do with your muscles being ready or you CNS? Well when it comes to simple progression not a lot. If you can progress that way you do it and if you can't it's going to be difficult to find a study that will tell you how to continue. Unless eveyone is supposed to be doing HST...but I like to be able to have a lot of strength for my hard work in the gym.
Quote:
|
There's only two ways to give an answer. 1. Objective scientific studies, or 2. Subjective anecdotal opionions.
|
That is so VERY black and white. There are many ways to get good info.
Let's take an expample. Look at a football team. You have a need for some of these guys to be (in a general way of speaking) big and strong. Now you ask these guys who they won't showing them the way between an experienced coach (probably with his own degree) and a physiology major in a white coat who's likely never seen the inside of a gym. What do you think the chances will be they pick the coach.
Do you think the coach bases everything on his own personal opinion based solely on subjective experience? Of course not. He bases it on 1. a thourough understanding of the basics of programming which is grounded in both science and the experience of those before him; 2. his own experience and objective observation of the trainees he's worked with, and 3. the science as it applies and illuminates all those things.
You are saying that everything that is not clinical in nature is subjective in nature and that is simply not true. By the same token we have to be somewhat subjective as we don't want to generalize everything we see to include ourselves. We take what works and throw out the rest. But there are definitely big huge guys out there who don't have a clue how they got there and who's opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. There are also a lot of them that do know how they got there. I think there is something to learn from everyone and not JUST scientific studies. In general I'm going to weight the info from the big huge guy first simply because he has the time under the bar, no matter how subjective his opinion may be. The trick is to learn enough to separate the wheat from the chaf.
Quote:
|
I assure you that every step of medical progress came from studies put together and built on. All medications were created that way. All medical procedures also. Believe me the first guy who operated on the brain was relying on what studies showed him would happened and not on anyone's opinion of what they though would happen when they first sliced into a brain.
|
The first guy to operate on a brain was an ancient Roman
. Ok so that is true but the first modern guy to operate a brain knew what was going to happen based on studies? Bro, I'm sorry but you are really off base here. The first guy who operated on a brain was taking a lot of guesses and a lot of chances. You can't even be sure where the veins and nerves are in any one individual. The first new surgery is taking a plunge into the unkown. I've actually assisted in veterinary surgeries. But none of this has anything to do with training.
Keep in mind that I AGREE with you that for the great majority a 3 times a week fullbody is the best bet. But you went beyond that and started prescribing sets and reps for everyone and when you get into that you have to get into the persons traininging experience and goals. There is no reason that three sets of 8 or so is better than 5 sets of 5 or 4 sets of 6 for that matter. In general I'd tell you that if you take a guy who starts out squatting 100 and and works that up to 300 and past then you have a much bigger guy. Onward and upwards past that and he is going to be an even bigger guy but there will come a point where "2 or 3 sets of 8 (or whatever) doesn't cut it.