- 06-05-2012, 09:15 AM
- 06-05-2012, 09:18 AM
I personally feel like it's best to try different routines and see what your body responds to the best. I can tell you after almost 20 years of training, my body does the best training chest/back together, biceps and triceps together, and doing legs by themselves.
06-05-2012, 09:25 AM
So it's just personal preference? I was doing some reading the other day and came across some information about upper back and chest working together to increase bench. Obviously I'm still learning as I go but to me the push/pull kinda split seems like it would allow you to focus on muscles more individually instead of working muscles with opposite movements hence the push/pull. It just looks counterproductive to me, I was just curious I guess.Originally Posted by bobbymac
06-05-2012, 09:29 AM
Arnold was a BIG believer in chest/back training. Whether you realize it or not, your back plays a huge role in chest/bench work. So when you superset chest/back, your chest is getting a phenomenal workout. If you have never tried this type of routine, I would HIGHLY recommend it.
06-05-2012, 09:39 AM
The whole reason I came across that info was because I'm start the 5/3/1 program. I bought the Ebook and it is packed with info. Although it doesn't make sense to me, now that I think about it I keep seeing posts on doing Kroc rows on chest day to increase your bench. Learning something new every time I log into this site!
06-05-2012, 09:49 AM
06-05-2012, 09:54 AM
06-05-2012, 10:02 AM
M.Ed. Ex Phys
06-05-2012, 10:12 AM
That makes sense. I never would have guessed it took all of that to do bench press properly. The main reason I'm trying the 5/3/1 is to increase some of my lifts after being stuck at the same weight for some time now. After reading Wendler's Ebook and what you just said it seems I still have a lot to learn but that's part of it. I appreciate the info!
06-05-2012, 10:17 AM
06-05-2012, 10:43 AM
The boring but big layout for 5/3/1 would be a nice bodybuilding routine for a few weeks imoOriginally Posted by Rodja
06-05-2012, 10:47 AM
06-05-2012, 10:57 AM
No it wouldn't. Any routine will have minimal, if any impact over the period of a couple weeks. The bbb template is to be used over months, not weeks. As rodja mentioned, 5/3/1 wasn't designed with bb'rs in mind. Can bb'rs use it with success? Maybe, but it would need to be tweaked alot and once that's done, it's not 5/3/1 anymore. I'm currently doing bbb with some pretty good results, but I'm not a bb'r.Originally Posted by Mafesto31
<---did squats yesterday, had a good bit of trouble getting off the toilet this morning.
06-05-2012, 11:28 AM
Sorry I was meaning to say a couple months and yes I've had success as far as mass gains using 5/3/1 adding more reps/sets after the initial lifts.Originally Posted by napalm
06-05-2012, 02:02 PM
WRT to 5/3/1 and bodybuilding, I had an interesting conversation with a client this morning. He asked why I had him doing a few blocks of 2-4 rep work after he read in NSCA that hypertrophy rep range was much higher. I replied that by increasing strength now, it would translate into a greater load used during hypertrophy based training, resulting in greater gains during the hypertrophy blocks.
06-05-2012, 02:41 PM
06-05-2012, 02:53 PM
On the other hand, I think if you are working with inexperienced athletes (those with young training ages...especially high school) then adopting the olympic model (as a full 2-4 year plan) and spending a significant amount of time on remedial and work accumulation, and planning for an overall peak the senior season is a great idea.
06-05-2012, 03:24 PM
M.Ed. Ex Phys
06-05-2012, 06:07 PM
06-05-2012, 06:12 PM
06-05-2012, 06:31 PM
06-05-2012, 06:52 PM
My major issue with the NSCA is the research that they publish. Ever since they switched to monthly paper publications, the quality of research and the type of research has (IMO) gone down hill. The need to "bridge the gap" has turned into much more theoretical publications with very little application to the world of strength and conditioning. For example, there is a lot of reports detailing the fitness levels of various team sport athletes, and even more reporting on post activation potentiation.
And then there are just poorly designed studies. Like comparing barbell vs. kettlebell training on strength, but, not matching intensity of load (i.e.: 80% barbell squat and 80% kettle bell squat for reps) and then at the end just testing increases in barbell strength, rather than seeing what kettle bell training does for both barbell and KB strength, and what barbell training does for KB and BB strength.
06-05-2012, 06:56 PM
But if you are an athlete with a long season, such as football, basketball, rugby, track, etc. Then its not a very good program. You need to peak athletes and then maintain or even increase during the season, and there are a number of different forms of fitness that need to be maintained (strength, power, conditioning, muscular endurance, size, etc.). This is why conjugated or undulating periodization is so effective.
06-05-2012, 06:56 PM
Another problem is that it is a percentage based system. Unless the max is consistently tested, the percentage can be highly inaccurate and the first 2 mesocycles don't do much for maximal strength development. They're great for shoring up weaknesses in the kinetic chain, but why would you take a break from training the actual movements in a ME fashion? You also don't get feedback in the form of strength increases until weeks down the road once the microcycle has been completed, so how do you know the lifts that you chose helped or hindered?
These are just some of the examples of the problems that I have with it and the NSCA does not want to deviate from it.
M.Ed. Ex Phys
06-05-2012, 07:23 PM
in your opinion, would it be worth the 650 bucks or so to join, get the study materials and then take the cscs? at this moment in time i have a job and my interest in the cscs is at this point strictly for knowledge, and possibly also having something to fall back on just in case. a stupid goal of mine is to be the strength coach at a high school. no grand plans or anything like that.
06-05-2012, 07:55 PM
what was this thread about?
1. how often would you test 1rm's? for me, i only test 1rm at a meet, i don't want to waste a pr in the gym. for that reason, percentages are very important to me, i base everything about my training around them. i can predict how strong i am (or aren't ) by my best triple for all three movements based on percentages.
2. don't you think the first 2 mesos set a base for the last 2? i'm not arguing, i really want to hear what you and br have to say about this. am i wrong in thinking if your going at high intenisty for a length of time say 2-3 months, without a break you're going to break down? my thoughts are the first couple mesos, at a lower intensity but increased volume set you up for the last two. then following a meet (using my example) i just deload for a few weeks. or, are you thinking that a lot of lower intensity (and increased volume) for a greater part of the year with say monthly testing of 1rm is the way to go? i've been breaking the year up into thirds, with 1 1/2 or so months ramping up volume, another 1 1/2 month or so of decreasing volume and upping intensity, finally a week of prs = a meet. i've been doing this for ~ a year and a half and have managed to stay injury free.
3. what does the nsca do if you 'deviate'? and the ceu's have caught my attention. i think the easiest way to do it is to pony up and go to a couple conferences or something like that - big chunks of the ceu's.
06-05-2012, 08:01 PM
06-05-2012, 08:30 PM
There are some good journals by the NSCA, being the sports performance journal and the strength and conditioning (not research) journal.
If your goal is to learn, the nothing beats attending seminars, work shops, and conferences (conferences to a certain extent). Check out some of Mike Boyles seminars for starters.
06-05-2012, 09:18 PM
1. Ideally, the athlete works up to a 1RM every week. Once for some form of bench and once for some lower body movement. Now, this does not mean that they same lift is done every week as that would lead to stagnation and burnout. This is why it is ideal to have some form of rotation for ME movements even if it's just changing the grip or using a different type of bar (e.g. cambered, safety-squat, Buffalo, etc.). The reason for this is that a meet is based upon your max single, not your max double, triple, etc. There are other ways to alter the lift with bands/chains a la circa max as well. Regarding percentages, using a PR from 3-4 months ago is going to be inaccurate, so it makes the percentages for the waves inaccurate. Motor abilities are lost at different rates and up to 10-15% of maximal strength can be lost in a few weeks if not trained.
2. IMO, the first two do not set a base because the rep range and, again, the inaccuracy of the percentages in addition to the loss of the abilities throughout the cycle (e.g. the hypertrophy built will slowly subside throughout the cycle). You are correct in saying that training at a high intensity for an extended period of time can lead to, at best, decreased performance and, at worst, injury, but there is a caveat and that is the aforementioned rotation of ME movements. I'll leave out the specifics of peaking for a meet since that's a very different discussion.
3. The NSCA won't reprimand you for not complying with their recommendations or anything like that. They're chiefly a business now and, as Zir said, their research quality has lowered considerably over the years. However, a CSCS is still mandatory as a S&C coach at pretty much any school/team.
M.Ed. Ex Phys
06-05-2012, 09:43 PM
1. every time i do my 'mini 2-3 month cycle', i up the base that i used the previous 'cycle.' bands/chains don't interest me, my feeling is you wanna get stronger, put more weight on the bar. that way, my pr from june will be better than march/sept pr will be better than june. with 5/3/1, it's easy to keep track of my percentages. i get that bands/chains work diff parts of the movement etc... but where i train, it's not an option and to me, not that important. my thoughts are if you keep training you're main movement: you'll get better at it. i don't see the need to rotate movements. again, i'm probably looking at this myopicly - something that has to change if i wanna train kids.
great topic for conversation!! somewhere there must be a thread....
2. ack!!!, we disagree on the setting the base concept. i'm in the camp that volume does help intensity later in the cycle. my feeling is that if the percentages don't work for the trainee, something has been overlooked.
3. txs for your thoughts!
Similar Forum Threads
- By hboyd66 in forum Workout LogsReplies: 0Last Post: 05-05-2012, 03:21 PM
- By TheMeatus101 in forum Training ForumReplies: 5Last Post: 11-16-2011, 11:54 PM
- By jspillane08 in forum Training ForumReplies: 2Last Post: 12-08-2008, 11:04 PM
- By bloodline26 in forum Training ForumReplies: 3Last Post: 10-15-2008, 10:25 PM
- By mofodaddy6932 in forum Training ForumReplies: 2Last Post: 01-10-2008, 12:26 AM