Lifting Reps or Heavy?
- 10-15-2013, 06:16 PM
My thought process was that there may be a genetic predisposition for certain attributes, IE someone being naturally muscular, explosive and powerful. That this person would get better results training specifically for his natural given traits like heavy lifting and lower reps. So it would seem that genetically that type of training would be ideal for him. Say another guy was very thin, not strong but could run distances without any training. Thought would be that higher reps and endurance training might be ideal for him.
Now after taking a moment to process what you were saying regarding proven programs use universally proven mechanisms of training stimulus, it began to occur to me that perhaps as you say the training mechanism being universal that the results are the only thing that is individual. That brought me to this though process.
If the mechanisms behind the training are the same, EI the two people listed above are both doing 5x5, they will get results, albeit different results. However the different results are not due to if the training was ideal for the genetics but if the genetics were ideal for growth/strength. Meaning the naturally muscular guy is probably going to make more muscular gains than the naturally skinny guy regardless of what type of resistance training they use because he is made to naturally carry more muscle. So certainly genetic traits has something to do with it, but there are more important factors that can actually be manipulated which are the factors we have been agreeing on thus far like training age, rest, stress and all of the other factors.
So is that along the same lines as what you have been saying? Someone may be naturally inclined toward a type of training because they are naturally gifted in that area. However that does not mean that the training is any more ideal for him than training in a completely different and opposite end of the spectrum. Basically a naturally muscular guy will gain more muscle than a naturally skinny guy whether on a high volume moderate weight, low volume heavy resistance or moderate volume moderate weight program because he is naturally predisposed to gaining and holding more muscle.
Is that more along the lines with how genetics would play a role from your understanding?
I hope others are actually enjoying or learning from this conversation. I think it is a good one and you seem to be intelligent which is why I bother to go back and forth with you at all. It is always good to discuss things, and if you don't just close the book on people with different views there is so much to learn out there.Live Hard, Laugh Hard, Love Hard and Heal Fast! - KLEEN
Use Kleen10 for a 10% discount
- 10-15-2013, 06:26 PM
I've been reading and following. Your debate is a good read. Interesting points and logic from both of you.
- 10-16-2013, 02:00 PM
the way i have commonly tried to explain how different people get different results even on a proven program i got from a chemist. they know mathematically how things will react. but mathematics allow for a controlled environment. if a chemical reaction is not as expected there was something else involved in the reaction. this can still be explained mathematically but that variable is an unknown and needs to still be taken into account.
to add to that. genetics plays a role in this example that say we take 2 people and one person has way higher test levels. using directly the chemical reaction analogy we know we are going to get a different solution from the chemicals/hormones involved. mechanically the process is the same but the amounts used were different so the outcome is different.
does that make sense?you can call me "ozzie" for short.
10-16-2013, 02:13 PM
Without reading all the arguments, I know I've always responded better to heavy weight, performed sprints better than long distance runs etcetera. Whether the tiny genetic percentage difference between myself or another guy is statistically insignificant, performance wise I am oceans apart from endurance athletes where the rubber meets the road.
10-16-2013, 02:40 PM
I would add that personal preference is a factor in getting a lot out of your program. If you really enjoy doing it and pushing yourself with the training you will make better gains because you give more of yourself to the endeavor. I would say shocking the body but really that comes to the training age since it is typically "new training" to the body even in a trained state.
Live Hard, Laugh Hard, Love Hard and Heal Fast! - KLEEN
Use Kleen10 for a 10% discount
10-16-2013, 02:44 PM
Here's a brilliant training mind giving a short discourse on the very topic you guys are covering:
10-16-2013, 03:13 PM
A timely find here. I just ran across this video from Elliot Hulse and he touches on this very thing.
Live Hard, Laugh Hard, Love Hard and Heal Fast! - KLEEN
Use Kleen10 for a 10% discount
10-16-2013, 03:15 PM
10-16-2013, 03:21 PM
10-17-2013, 01:43 PM
10-17-2013, 02:44 PM
10-18-2013, 10:51 PM
Staying within your anaerobic threshold will yield the best results. It is the fast-twitch muscle fibers that have the primary function of the contractions within a muscle group that is under great resistance and use more phosphate than glucose...and will also hypertrophy in a greater degree of response than slow-twitch muscle fibers will. However, some individuals though, do not HAVE fast-twitch fibers as the dominant makeup of their muscle groups or certain muscle groups. Instead, they have more slow-twitch, "endurance type" fibers that do not hypertrophy as much. But they do. Going short of having your dominant fiber type determined by an anatomist, simply experimenting to find your "prescription" for reps is all you can do.
10-19-2013, 12:01 AM
10-19-2013, 05:02 AM
10-28-2013, 01:56 AM
10-28-2013, 10:36 AM
you can call me "ozzie" for short.
10-30-2013, 12:46 AM
I'm conflicted about that. The NSCA-CPT book I have actually had a whole paragraph about how going to failure might be counterproductive, which is weird, but I'm not a strength scientist so I have no idea who to trust.
10-30-2013, 01:03 AM
10-30-2013, 04:25 AM
11-02-2013, 09:46 AM
11-02-2013, 03:36 PM
I think it is easier for a beginner to recover and go this far and still makes gains, since the beginner is no where near using the weights/loads and having the inroads and recovery issues that more advanced trainees are doing. They hit 90%-100% failure pretty quickly and are spent because they do not have the recovery to keep beating the horse like more advanced trainees do. That is why so many differing tests can show results. Because they use novices and novices/untrained respond to almost any type of protocol and training.
This is again where I see some training science(s) and laws, kind of getting in the way of just...
- Going to gym (showing up is the most important thing, most failures are not stapled to)
-Lifting weights up (too much enphasis put on how many reps, how many exercises, how many angles...)
- Going home and eating (nuff said)
-Going back to gym 2 days later and lifting more (adding weight to the big compounds, is one of, if not the most important point, if one one to keep getting bigger and stronger)
11-02-2013, 03:41 PM
11-02-2013, 05:20 PM
Failure is the loss of the ability to properly execute another repetition to the exact same technique as the previous rep; typically full range. Grading it on a curved scale for the advanced trainer's preference doesn't change the definition it is what it is as a training principle as devised by Weider...not me I'm just the messenger. Gotta draw the line somewhere. Beyond that is rest pause, forced reps, cheating techniques, descending sets and partial reps.
11-02-2013, 05:39 PM
That post means nothing because that is an opinion of what failure is to you or the article you read. It's not hard to find 10 others with a different definition. In any case, this horse could get really beat.
I don't like or agree with training to failure, so for me it doesn't matter. I just think that there are different schools of thought to it and it's effectiveness for any level of experience.
11-02-2013, 06:18 PM
It's not an opinion, it's a method of a training principle standardized over 70yrs ago and outlined by Joe Weider, in his encyclopedia of modern bodybuilding...it's over 600 pages btw. Failure is failure...you can complete another full rep or you can't. There's only one way to say it.
11-03-2013, 09:05 AM
Failure to an untrained person is of course obvious but, will most likely have less overall inroad or systemic effect than a trainee using heavier loads. That is why beginner programs can have one training the entire body 3x per week with say 3x 8-10, and seeing progress nearly weekly for a good period, as recovery is fairly quick for the majority of them.
11-03-2013, 10:23 AM
11-03-2013, 12:49 PM
Failure in the bi curl and failure in the squats, are going to elicit 2 totally different outcomes IMO. So almost everyone can go to failure in the bi curl and recover in a day or so whereas, failure in the squats, different. I have done failure in the curls many times, using Mentzer's negs and eccentrics and all of that. They never beat me up 2-4 days later, like a good heavy set of squats would, even taken to "almost failure" not even actual failure.
So what I am saying, is.. sure you can talk about failure, but it all depends on the trainee, the exercises, their levels and how uncomfortable they are willing to make themselves.
Your older way rings of some HITish Jones/Mentzer one set to failure stuff. Most trainees will do better with a bit more volume, frequency and less super high intensity stuff, since the higher intensity stuff, drains the CNS and training becomes drudgery instead of fun.Right now, I'm experimenting with finding out if it's better to hit a muscle group within a couple of days less rest than I used to but with a little less emphasis on total exhaustion of it per workout; rather than beating the crap out of it and then taking more days off before doing it again. I think before it seemed like after a while I was just resting for too long, sometimes because even after the 4th or 5th day I was still sore.
* This has been a long going debate, before there has even been and internet. (from SuperSlow, HIT, Dr Ken, Bob Whelan to Mike and Arnold and I am going to guess it was more successful to some of those BB'ers, because of the extra PEDS they were using in comparison to us mere mortals. I trained protocols like Mentzer's /Viator's Intensity For Immensity stuff, years ago)
I am going to guess you will find your new protocols will perhaps work(at least for a while but not forever) It is like Dan John says. Everything works, for about 6 weeks then nothing seems to work. Progress will never happen in a linear fashion forever, especially as you get more and more advanced and adapted. The human body grows in spurts and by differing and changing stimuli.
11-03-2013, 01:55 PM
11-03-2013, 04:30 PM
Good point...going to failure on squats even gets ya down to your toes! And it's pretty dangerous. I only do those to a mediocre level anymore, hardly even 200lbs...had a major back surgery in 2007 that put me out of training to hardly at all till about 4 months ago. Before that, ya I WAS employing some HIT principles only in the sense of "less is more" for a few years, I gained some strength and about 16lbs. And a lot of joint pain...lol
Similar Forum Threads
- By someguy1984 in forum Training ForumReplies: 10Last Post: 03-15-2009, 07:31 PM
- By drivehard in forum Training ForumReplies: 8Last Post: 10-07-2008, 01:40 AM
- By GOG in forum Training ForumReplies: 1Last Post: 05-15-2006, 11:23 PM
- By lvtrojan in forum Training ForumReplies: 11Last Post: 08-25-2003, 06:00 PM