Go Back   Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum > Main Forums > Training


Hypertrophy and Strength - Not so Different



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-07-2008, 05:02 PM
EricT EricT is offline
Rank: Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Default

Ok, Kane understood what you meant about your training.

If you were to be reaching failure quite often then you may have people tell you that you run the risk of CNS overtraining. SOME actually do relate intensity to rep maximums. It is a very convoluted and confusing way to look at it. I agree wholeheartedly with Kane...8 reps isn't a high intensity.

As far my example of going to failure....again, the only affect any CNS "fatigue" would be a decreased abiltity to maintain that particular intensity but your would have a hard time telling the affects of "volume fatigue" from any other fatigue. Certainly if you felt over-reached that would be volume calling.

But you are not stupid. Some people are and need to be told not to keep doing the same things in the face of performance decrements.

Like Kane was saying higher volume will accumulate more fatigue. The higher the volume the longer it takes for that fatigue to dissapate. Let me put it this way. If you started the week with say, 15 reps and you ended the week with 30 reps the fatigue from the 30 reps would be longer lasting. That kind of makes a little sense, doesn't it?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-07-2008, 05:18 PM
Ross86's Avatar
Ross86 Ross86 is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 3,268
Send a message via AIM to Ross86
Default

Yep. That's something I need to address more with my own training. Because I've just started playing with the whole higher volume idea...I just don't know a lot about it. But I suppose experimenting is the only way to learn how I can deal with x amount of volume/intensity. Because of injuries and stuff, I'm trying to keep volume higher instead of intensity, but as time progresses I think I'll try to raise intensity. Just because I like the 5X5 so much. Sometimes I wish I was a genetic freak and could just not know anything, go into the gym, lift, and get bigger. Ignorance would be blissful in that case.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-07-2008, 05:20 PM
_Wolf_'s Avatar
_Wolf_ _Wolf_ is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,794
Send a message via MSN to _Wolf_
Default

lots of excellent points. this thread needs to be stickied.

i wanted to add....

i think the olympic athletes manage CNS recovery the best. from what i have read and heard, i know that most of them sometimes train upto 6-7 times a day and they use 90%+ of their 1RM. to me, thats damn impressive especially since a lot of those guys step on stage ripped and built like tanks.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-07-2008, 05:25 PM
EricT EricT is offline
Rank: Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Default

Olympic athletes really should be payed attention to. It's important to realize, though, that they are doing "power" work so if you relate that to their ability on a corresponding "slow" lift it will probalby be much lighter.

But all that aside, the weigh they train (and I don't know how all of them train of course ) is completely different. I mean you won't see them doing their O lifts and derivative Crossfit style. Every rep is done with utmost explosiveness and quality. They don't work to "fatigue". You are not going to see them radid firing 5x5 reps of hang cleans. Even without planning just look at what happens when they go real heavy and the bar is on the floor between reps. You have a bunch of rest-paused reps. They are getting rest in between.

Ross, I wouldn't assume that really high volume is going to protect you from injury or necessarily rehab your current ones. But if you are actively injured I agree you should be lifting too heavy. But, for me, most of my seriouls injuries (pretty much every damned joint in my body) has come about becasue of the quantity over quality of volume based lifting and not to mention the repetitive strain couple with bad movement quality.

May sound hard to believe but I've only "hurt" myself lifting very heavy weights one time. And it was minor. And that was doing something really stupid.

One thing to take seriously is that most of us take heavier weights more seriously . If you do a heavy double, you approach with an entirely different mindset than when you do volume stuff. Of course you can get hurt lifting TOO heavy but everyone knows we are not talking about that. Most restistance training injuries are not brought about from technical failure with heavy loads. Quite the opposite, actually.

Even if people don't move away from the volume mostly mindset, I would encourage them to wrap their minds around this idea of QUALITY.

There is a big difference between focusing on one or two heavy reps and focuing on getting all your reps and sets in, really quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-07-2008, 05:29 PM
Kane's Avatar
Kane Kane is offline
Rank: Middleweight
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross86 View Post
Because of injuries and stuff, I'm trying to keep volume higher instead of intensity
Doing singles, imho, are much safer injury wise. Yes you're going for a max, but the key is that (like Eric said) you're not going for a PR. Quality over quantity, so form is very high on the pecking order. Whereas a PR can be downright dirty sometimes, busting a nut to move the weight at all costs.

In this case you're executing very intense single reps (or doubles, triples) while maintaining near perfect (or at least very good) form. You're prepared for the rep and you're focused on that rep, whereas you'd normally focus on the set.

More than likely your chance for injury is higher with a 5x5 than with this type of scheme.
__________________
"Pain don't hurt" - Dalton

"NO, this is my squat rack. Go get your own!"

"Damn that's shit heavy" - Wolf


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-07-2008, 05:45 PM
Ross86's Avatar
Ross86 Ross86 is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 3,268
Send a message via AIM to Ross86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane View Post
Doing singles, imho, are much safer injury wise. Yes you're going for a max, but the key is that (like Eric said) you're not going for a PR. Quality over quantity, so form is very high on the pecking order. Whereas a PR can be downright dirty sometimes, busting a nut to move the weight at all costs.

In this case you're executing very intense single reps (or doubles, triples) while maintaining near perfect (or at least very good) form. You're prepared for the rep and you're focused on that rep, whereas you'd normally focus on the set.

More than likely your chance for injury is higher with a 5x5 than with this type of scheme.
I see your point... I don't think it applies to me right now though. Here is an example:

My lower back is very weak. I have been doing 3X12 at around 245 with squats. My lower back is not strong enough to allow me to do +300, I don't think. Maybe I could do 275 for a few singles..maybe. But I am focusing so much on form with all of my lifts that it is a non-issue, I think. And I think a lot of it has to do with how I have been doing rehab, with a focus on volume and form. I don't think I can do enough weight for singles to outweigh the benefits of doing a 3X12. The same is especially true for deadlifts. I could go pull 350 off of the floor with perfect form, but I wouldn't be able to walk the next day. The same goes for 315. But I think I can handle 250 or so very well...in which case singles won't do as much good as some volume might so long as I can maintain form. Deadlifts tend to be like a bunch of singles anyway, so maybe that's not a good example. But my lower back is the reason I've been looking at the higher volume stuff.

EDIT: As soon as the lower back gets strong enough, I might switch back to doing the higher intensity like you suggested. I guess I'm just not at that stage yet. There just hasn't been a day that I haven't been aching since I hurt it again...although it is becoming more and more mild.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-07-2008, 05:51 PM
EricT EricT is offline
Rank: Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Default

Let me be clear that I am not suggesting that everyone on this forum start doing a bunch of maximal work.

How to deal with a weak back or injuries..that is a whole nother discussion Having an injury of course is different than avoiding one.

Let's just say we are making a lot of assumptions about where someone is in their training and whether they are healthy.

However, and this is going to sound like some really crazy stuff, just lifting heavier can be just as good for strength regardless of how heavy it is in terms of maximal ability. No matter what, you are putting just as much emphasis on counting reps and sets as form and quality. You are also assuming that you have to always reach toward a certain "rep maximum" to derive any benefit.

So here is the CRAZY statement. You can get stronger by lifting a heavier weight more times than you normally would using a "rep maximum" approach. I am not saying of course that you shouldn't do your volume training. I am only saying that you are making the assumption that the classic approach to volume is the only thing of use to you at this time.

Obviously you wouldn't try to take a weight you could lift 36 times in a 3x12 and lift it 50. But that doesn't mean that some good quality work at higher relative intensities, but not necessarily maximal ones, could be of benefit.

Getting back to the 3x3 example. Everyone assumes that volume and time, two secondary parameters, are just as important as intensity or workload. Now it may be true that there is a limit to how much benefit can be derived from workload but that doesn't mean that there is not much more benefit to be derived when your let loose the constraints of everything being a race to sets and reps. Most everyone can take a weight that they would use for 3x3, and lift it more times, for quality reps. Might that just be useful . I know it is. I'm not saying you should do exactly that, Ross, it's just an example.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-07-2008, 05:55 PM
Kane's Avatar
Kane Kane is offline
Rank: Middleweight
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,238
Default

In your case I would say to keep doing what you're doing as long as the quality/form is there, and apply this at a point when you're healthy and able to do it safely.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-06-2008, 08:04 AM
EricT EricT is offline
Rank: Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Default

Apparently I'm not the only one thinking along the lines I've outlined in this thread. I've been hinting around (haha) that 5x5 reps/sets isn't some magical ticket to continued strength gains.

Used to, however, I bought into the idea that 5x5 was the best way for intermediates to progress and that more "advanced" ways are needed for, well, the "advanced".

But I slowly realized how ludicrous that was. Then I started to realize that for strength, intermediates should start dipping below 5 reps sooner rather than later and that "volume" was for sure not going to get it done. It's about intensity.

Seems Eric Cressey has noticed that 5x5 has gotten to be a little bit too overemphasized as well:

http://ericcressey.blogspot.com/

This is a short blog post but he goes into some of the stuff I've been trying to say here.

I mean, seriously, with "methods" like the Texas Method you get terms like "volume/intensity"....that is an oxymoron and we all know it. The idea that there is some magical volume-intensity relationship is what gets people spinning their wheels in the quest for strength. It is decidedly bodybuilding thinking. Yes you need volume. But no there is not a magical balance that will be the 'best' for getting you stronger. Most here know that I understand these routines and methods as well or better than most. But that understanding has forced me to also understand there very real limitations.

The next time someone says "intensity is the most important thing but...." then you should recognize that they don't really believe it. They are just regurgitating things they have heard. If it is the most important then there is no "but"...especially since you know what follows the "but" which will be something about how much volume you need without which you won't have a proper 'stumulus'.

There are all sorts of parameters that can be manipulated in order to progress. Many times we lose sight of that and get stuck on JUST loading the bar or JUST adding volume. So that makes me hesitant to state my opinion on what is THE MOST IMPORTANT...

BUT it needs to be said and repeated imho: The most important thing related to strength is:

1: Intensity
1a: quality of movement

Some of the mantras that all of us repeat have lead many of us to roadblocks and frustration. There is no bigger source of confusion than this question of strength versus mass. We had to counter this ludicrous notion that there was a difference between the two. That one goal could be sought independantly of the other. But as so often happens in our zeal to counter on extreme falsehood we tend to create another extreme.

It's going to be difficult to explain what I mean by this and it may cause some to think I'm saying certain things that I don't intend to say. That's always the risk you take, though, when discussing principles rather than methods. But I'll try just to make a few simple statements as examples.

1. It is easier to gain mass once you have a strength base. The stronger you are and the more time you spend at the highest of intensities, the easier it will be to stimulate mass gains when that is a primary goal.

2. When you are a beginner strength gains will come first before mass but strength and mass for the large part are "all of a package".

3. And as a beginner (which partly follows from 2) the same movements, volume, etc that get you mass get you strength and vice-versa. I.E. you pretty much are going to get stronger and therefore bigger from whatever you do if there is progression and continued overload. But...

4. As you move past the beginner stage you need more and more intensity to get stronger. More intensity means less volume.

5. Continued mass gains are actually easier to achieve than continuous significant gains in absolute strength. Not forgetting of course that continued gains in absolute strength still make mass gains eaiser to accomplish.

6. When you are a beginner you can simply rely on you basic big compound movements to accomplish your purpose of strength and mass.

7. As you move past the beginner stage if you continue to rely on the same movements for maximal expression of both qualities you will find that one or both of those goas is comprimised. But you've been told things like "squats are the greatest mass building exercise"....

8. But what you don't realize is getting bigger by doing squats is easier than continuing to get stronger at squats. You also don't realize that the stronger you get at things like squats and deadlifts the easier it will be to, for instance, grow big legs, with other movements to support your goal of mass. If you continue getting stronger for as long as possible you will continue getting bigger longer. If not, your mass gains will stop UNTIL you add significant strength (unless you do "something else"). The more advanced you get the truer this becomes.

9. There are lots of strength qualities that contribute to your gaol of gaining absolute strength, but, as stated above, imo the most important factors are intensity and quality of movement.

10. You can accumulate volume in all sorts of ways as long as you manage all the stressors involve. Or in other words plan for recovery. But there are relatively few ways to gain absolute strength and the options become fewer as you advance.

11. Fullbodies are probably best for beginners but they are not the "best" for everyone. That is not to say that bodypart splits are the way to go!

Last edited by EricT; 05-06-2008 at 09:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-06-2008, 08:17 AM
_Wolf_'s Avatar
_Wolf_ _Wolf_ is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,794
Send a message via MSN to _Wolf_
Default

Eric, nice post and I read the blog entry. However, I am curious: if it is best for intermediate trainees work at 85-90% of their 1RM, then what is best of advanced trainees? 90-95%? I'm just curious because Cressey outlines what intermediate trainees should be doing but leaves out what advanced trainees should also be doing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum > Main Forums > Training


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes



 



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.