Topic of the week: Is Overtraining BS?

[Rodja]

i think ''undertraining'' is what people should be worried about.. i mean ive never felt that wow **** im doing to much and im going backwards.. if you train with sufficent intensity and good frequency with good diet you will not reach an overtrained state .. and if you reach that point in 1 or 2 workouts a month then you will not get huge negative effects..

Aren't you like 19?

 

[pyrobatt]

Honestly overtraining wouldn't be an issue if people did the minimum amount of work to fully ilicet growth then go back home. That's all you really need. ...
Why be in there for 7 hrs? Unless you enjoy it...

Competition aside. They over reach because of necessity.

 

[Rodja]

Honestly overtraining wouldn't be an issue if people did the minimum amount of work to fully ilicet growth then go back home. That's all you really need. ...
Why be in there for 7 hrs? Unless you enjoy it...

Competition aside. They over reach because of necessity.

I partially agree with you. Overreaching is still necessary for all, but it should only be for a week or two followed by a deload.

 

[HIT4ME]

Your definition of overtraining is not correct. Youre implying it can occur from a single session when it cannot.

If someone doesnt progress, overtraining should not be your knee jerk reaction. Your immediate focus should be to see if injury is an issue then move back to see how their training plan is designed. It may well be lack of recovery but for a BBer this is hardly ever the case given the amount of rest between movement sessions (unless youre even more of a bro) and the intensity of the average BB session is usually not high enough to lead to overtraining.

Also Its not a "theory", there are studies on volume, intensity manipulation readily available, if it were only a theory then coaches, strength and conditioning experts, physiologists etc wouldnt have a place in this industry.

I am wondering if your views are grounded In research as I would love to read them if possible

Someone who has never training a movement before will not stimulate all the motor neurons in that movement - this is why noob gains exist because you effectively train more motor neurons to activate [Read more here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4001023/ and here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16464122] also, when volume is equated tained individuals recover faster than non trained [http://www.ufjf.br/reabilitacaocardiaca/files/2008/07/EPOC.pdf] which is hardly surprising given the metabolic and neural adaptations that occur in a trained status. Mind you, giving an untrained person the same routine (volume, intensity, density etc) as a trained person would likely result in them fatiguing in the session much faster as they have not yet acclimated to that workload.

Also your srint analogy is off. Recovery IS a component of performance - you distinguishing the two separately doesn't make them separate. The ability to recover between training bouts (in this case sprints) IMPROVES performance. The lack of recovery between bouts shows lack of performance in that component. Additionally, 2-3 workouts is not enough time to see enough change to warrant an 100% increase in volume and in this case again, the lack of recovery shows their lack of performance capability.

Also a weight increase is relative and makes no sense in this context. If you can hit a 220lb bench press for 1 (at 100% 1RM) then 12 months later hit a 440lbs for 1 (100% of 1RM) then the net effect of the intensity is the same and the recovery would be similar. The fact it is more weight fails to take the % of intensity factor into consideration. I can recover faster from 12 sprints than I could a year ago at 1 sprint.

HIT4ME

Your definition of overtraining is just plain wrong. For example, your second person is by no means experiencing overtraining because they've plateaued. The reason for it is simple and you even put it: no programming. Overtraining will not have just a single effect of stagnation. There's often regression, injury, and illness.

It seems you're also mixed up on what exactly recovery and performance are. The better your body is conditioned, the more stress the body can handle. The higher the threshold, then the better the recovery capabilities. If it only takes you 90s to recover from a set as opposed to 180s, then your body (and brain) have become more efficient and can handle the stress better. Due to this, your recovery will also be improved. That's more or less the principle behind periodization: ramping up your training as your body becomes more adept at adapting to the increased stress aka recovery. The better your base layer of conditioning, the shorter time you need to spend during the initial phase(s).

You're viewing the CNS as a muscle when it is VERY different. Overtraining is a metabolic condition and not just something that applies to the gym. It's not even completely an overtrained state, but anyone that's done a PL meet will tell you how awful they feel the next day. This isn't due to muscular fatigue; it's completely due to CNS fatigue. Also, having a certain base of conditioning is necessary to complete said even as they often last 8+ hours.

Man, where do I begin. First off, my definition of overtraining is something along the lines of "Having stimulated muscle growth, you are not seeing results on a workout to workout basis." This is built on the assumption that one has actually stimulated muscle growth and the following assumption that the simplified process of muscle growth is, "Stimulate > Recover > Grow" Having said that, if you are indeed stimulating muscle growth, and not growing, then what are the possible causes? Under training can't be the issue - you've trained sufficiently to stimulate muscle growth. What other issues are left? Insufficient recovery and/or insufficient time for growth. If my definition is off, cool. It is a very simple definition. How would you define it? (I mean this sincerely)

Second, I'm not suggesting it can occur in a single session AT ALL. I am suggesting that it takes 2 sessions to overtrain. I am sure you would agree. For instance, if I go in the gym and completely kill my chest workout this morning and then go back tonight and try to kill it again, will I make progress tonight? No, I will NOT see improvement. Why? Because I have NOT allowed for time to recover from my workout this morning, and since I have not recovered, my body has not had time to make changes either. This can happen if you train twice in one day, but it also happens a lot when you train twice a week too, and sometimes even training once per week.

Also, I will take the recovery/performance example a step further then. If you do a sprint, at 100% take a break, and then do a second sprint - again, all out 100% - will it be as good as your first sprint? Or will you be just a little bit slower? Could this be because you haven't fully recovered yet? You may have higher performance levels in sprints 1 and 2 than you would have if you were untrained, but you are still going to lose ground, you won't be recovered. And if your muscles haven't recovered, your CNS certainly hasn't even started the process. That is why I am saying there are two ways of viewing recovery - performance (how long can I go and how fast can I go again) and recovery (my body has repaired all damage and either begun to adapt if the body sees it as necessary).

Second, I'm not viewing the CNS as a muscle. I don't think it can be trained, it doesn't adapt the same way that muscles do. The argument AGAINST my view is saying it can be trained and adapted (like a muscle).

As for my views being based in research - I read studies, but only as they come available to me. I don't search them out. I'm just not good at that. My views are more based on my thinking about this, reading whatever I come across, thinking more, experimenting on myself, and seeing where others have failed in this. I don't discount studies at all - but I admit it's not my strong suit. I need to get better there, I'm sure there's an interesting world I've yet to fully uncover.

Also, someone mentioned overtraining being a buzzword that is thrown about too much and I agree - I think it's a fundamental part of training though. We all have limits.

And I am not saying that overtraining should be a knee-jerk reaction if you are not progressing. It should be a logical reaction. The knee-jerk reaction should be, "Am I sufficiently stimulating muscle growth" because THAT is the premise that this is built upon. If you ARE stimulating muscle growth, and you're not growing, there aren't many options at hand.

Finally, Jiggz, you are pointing out that a weight increase is relative, and that is kind of my point. 100% intensity is strenuous and difficult to recover from - period. BUT, you HAVE to be burning more calories, experiencing more protein turnover, etc. if you are bench pressing 440 pounds than if you are benching 220 pounds. Your body can only synthesize so much protein and recover from all this training so quickly. If you've been training for 1 year or 5 years, I would bet the rate at which your body can synthesis protein has not changed THAT dramatically, it isn't like you are synthesizing protein twice as fast just because you have twice as much muscle.

Rodja and Jiggz, I REALLY believe all 3 of us have more similar views than you may think. I wonder and hope you see some similarities. You're both asking some great questions, and I know you guys know your stuff, so I'm not trying to claim I am smarter than or know more than either of you - actually, I hope I'm not coming across as simple minded. But these discussions are great.

 

[HIT4ME]

Honestly overtraining wouldn't be an issue if people did the minimum amount of work to fully ilicet growth then go back home. That's all you really need. ...
Why be in there for 7 hrs? Unless you enjoy it...

Competition aside. They over reach because of necessity.

This is my point to some degree...just said differently. Stimulate growth, get out, and spend time recovering. I'm not saying take 15 days between workouts, but do what you gotta do, get out, and make sure you give yourself enough time to see results before your next workout.

I partially agree with you. Overreaching is still necessary for all, but it should only be for a week or two followed by a deload.

Overreaching is temporary overtraining in my viewpoint, but maybe this is worth saying - I am also NOT saying overtraining itself doesn't have some purpose, if followed by sufficient recovery protocol. I mean, maybe driving yourself into a hole and then giving yourself time to come back will cause stronger adaptations, right? It's just CHRONIC overtraining/overreaching that will kill you. If over-reaching didn't have some role, one set would be all that would benefit anyone, because multiple sets are a form of over-reaching to a very small degree.

 

[Jiigzz]

Man, where do I begin. First off, my definition of overtraining is something along the lines of "Having stimulated muscle growth, you are not seeing results on a workout to workout basis." This is built on the assumption that one has actually stimulated muscle growth and the following assumption that the simplified process of muscle growth is, "Stimulate > Recover > Grow" Having said that, if you are indeed stimulating muscle growth, and not growing, then what are the possible causes? Under training can't be the issue - you've trained sufficiently to stimulate muscle growth. What other issues are left? Insufficient recovery and/or insufficient time for growth. If my definition is off, cool. It is a very simple definition. How would you define it? (I mean this sincerely)

Second, I'm not suggesting it can occur in a single session AT ALL. I am suggesting that it takes 2 sessions to overtrain. I am sure you would agree. For instance, if I go in the gym and completely kill my chest workout this morning and then go back tonight and try to kill it again, will I make progress tonight? No, I will NOT see improvement. Why? Because I have NOT allowed for time to recover from my workout this morning, and since I have not recovered, my body has not had time to make changes either. This can happen if you train twice in one day, but it also happens a lot when you train twice a week too, and sometimes even training once per week.

Also, I will take the recovery/performance example a step further then. If you do a sprint, at 100% take a break, and then do a second sprint - again, all out 100% - will it be as good as your first sprint? Or will you be just a little bit slower? Could this be because you haven't fully recovered yet? You may have higher performance levels in sprints 1 and 2 than you would have if you were untrained, but you are still going to lose ground, you won't be recovered. And if your muscles haven't recovered, your CNS certainly hasn't even started the process. That is why I am saying there are two ways of viewing recovery - performance (how long can I go and how fast can I go again) and recovery (my body has repaired all damage and either begun to adapt if the body sees it as necessary).

Second, I'm not viewing the CNS as a muscle. I don't think it can be trained, it doesn't adapt the same way that muscles do. The argument AGAINST my view is saying it can be trained and adapted (like a muscle).

As for my views being based in research - I read studies, but only as they come available to me. I don't search them out. I'm just not good at that. My views are more based on my thinking about this, reading whatever I come across, thinking more, experimenting on myself, and seeing where others have failed in this. I don't discount studies at all - but I admit it's not my strong suit. I need to get better there, I'm sure there's an interesting world I've yet to fully uncover.

Also, someone mentioned overtraining being a buzzword that is thrown about too much and I agree - I think it's a fundamental part of training though. We all have limits.

And I am not saying that overtraining should be a knee-jerk reaction if you are not progressing. It should be a logical reaction. The knee-jerk reaction should be, "Am I sufficiently stimulating muscle growth" because THAT is the premise that this is built upon. If you ARE stimulating muscle growth, and you're not growing, there aren't many options at hand.

Finally, Jiggz, you are pointing out that a weight increase is relative, and that is kind of my point. 100% intensity is strenuous and difficult to recover from - period. BUT, you HAVE to be burning more calories, experiencing more protein turnover, etc. if you are bench pressing 440 pounds than if you are benching 220 pounds. Your body can only synthesize so much protein and recover from all this training so quickly. If you've been training for 1 year or 5 years, I would bet the rate at which your body can synthesis protein has not changed THAT dramatically, it isn't like you are synthesizing protein twice as fast just because you have twice as much muscle.

Rodja and Jiggz, I REALLY believe all 3 of us have more similar views than you may think. I wonder and hope you see some similarities. You're both asking some great questions, and I know you guys know your stuff, so I'm not trying to claim I am smarter than or know more than either of you - actually, I hope I'm not coming across as simple minded. But these discussions are great.

Again your definition of overtraining is not correct and I feel as though you just made it up lol. If you are not growing on a day to day basis (incredibly hard to tell given the multitude of factors and time required for structural changes to occur) then you first need to look at the training plan and see how they plan of progressing. A surprising number of people go into the gym with ZERO plan and therefore how can they expect this to work over a long period? Even the best BBers utilise a training plan because of the weighting it holds for understanding progress.

There is no way you are overtrained after "killing chest" then trying to train back - that is not over training. Moreover you are implying an absolute to a situation that is totally 100% theoretical. People make plenty of progress "killing it" in the gym DAILY. To imply that they will not make progress makes me wonder how so many people in the gym do see progress with these training protocols (in fact, a lot of people do 2-a-day trainings). You can still produce maximal voluntary muscle actions even in a state of fatigue (think the last rep of the set). Again, if you think you can truly over train just by having one hard session (where intensity is moderate) then you have not fully grasped what overtraining actually is and I literally have no idea how to debate with you as you seem to be fixated that training once per week is enough.

The CNS can absolutely adapt. I'm not even sure how you can question that.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200636020-00004#page-1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929096001704

Also, I will take the recovery/performance example a step further then. If you do a sprint, at 100% take a break, and then do a second sprint - again, all out 100% - will it be as good as your first sprint? Or will you be just a little bit slower? Could this be because you haven't fully recovered yet? You may have higher performance levels in sprints 1 and 2 than you would have if you were untrained, but you are still going to lose ground, you won't be recovered. And if your muscles haven't recovered, your CNS certainly hasn't even started the process. That is why I am saying there are two ways of viewing recovery - performance (how long can I go and how fast can I go again) and recovery (my body has repaired all damage and either begun to adapt if the body sees it as necessary).

I'm not even sure where to start with this. I never said a repeated sprint will be as optimal as the first, but the rate of recovery between bouts can dictate the effort of the next - the level of adaptation will dictate the response, speed and level of the recovery. A untrained person performing a 90% maximal sprint will struggle performing sequential sprints in a reduced time frame as opposed to a trained person. Sure, they both fatigue, but the difference lies in the % of intensity sustained, the speed of recovery after each successive bout etc. etc.

Your first fatal flaw is your misunderstanding of overtraining - not only how it occurs but the difficulty people have in actually attaining a TRUE condition. Just because you define it in one way doesn't actually change its definition. People fail to progress because they don't plan for it.

 

[HIT4ME]

Again your definition of overtraining is not correct and I feel as though you just made it up lol. If you are not growing on a day to day basis (incredibly hard to tell given the multitude of factors and time required for structural changes to occur) then you first need to look at the training plan and see how they plan of progressing. A surprising number of people go into the gym with ZERO plan and therefore how can they expect this to work over a long period? Even the best BBers utilise a training plan because of the weighting it holds for understanding progress.

There is no way you are overtrained after "killing chest" then trying to train back - that is not over training. Moreover you are implying an absolute to a situation that is totally 100% theoretical. People make plenty of progress "killing it" in the gym DAILY. To imply that they will not make progress makes me wonder how so many people in the gym do see progress with these training protocols (in fact, a lot of people do 2-a-day trainings). You can still produce maximal voluntary muscle actions even in a state of fatigue (think the last rep of the set). Again, if you think you can truly over train just by having one hard session (where intensity is moderate) then you have not fully grasped what overtraining actually is and I literally have no idea how to debate with you as you seem to be fixated that training once per week is enough.

The CNS can absolutely adapt. I'm not even sure how you can question that.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200636020-00004#page-1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929096001704



I'm not even sure where to start with this. I never said a repeated sprint will be as optimal as the first, but the rate of recovery between bouts can dictate the effort of the next - the level of adaptation will dictate the response, speed and level of the recovery. A untrained person performing a 90% maximal sprint will struggle performing sequential sprints in a reduced time frame as opposed to a trained person. Sure, they both fatigue, but the difference lies in the % of intensity sustained, the speed of recovery after each successive bout etc. etc.

Your first fatal flaw is your misunderstanding of overtraining - not only how it occurs but the difficulty people have in actually attaining a TRUE condition. Just because you define it in one way doesn't actually change its definition. People fail to progress because they don't plan for it.

Jiggz, I didn't say that if you train chest in the morning and then train back tonight, I said if you train chest in the morning and then hit it (chest) again tonight. You will most likely see a loss of strength tonight if you attempt that and you truly went 100% this morning. Because you haven't recovered.

I agree, people go into the gym with no plan - and if you are going into the gym, busting your ass and not seeing results, what is the solution? Add more volume? Add more rest? How do you formulate a plan that deals with these. These are the questions that underlie training programs, and you can utilize the programs (5X5, 5/3/1, etc) without knowing the reasons, just following the protocol, or you can understand the protocol.

I never said that people can't progress on 2-a-days. Either.

As to your last paragraph - I 100% agree. Just because I use the wrong definition doesn't change anything. However, what is your definition? I'm sincerely asking. It seems to me that "Over" "Training" means training too much, or too hard, or too long. How do you define what is too much or too hard or too long? I've done that - you are not allowing for sufficient time between bouts to allow for growth. Maybe my definition is wrong, but you haven't provided an alternative.

I mean, again, as simple as it gets, if you are stimulating growth in a workout and then don't see results in the following workout, why? What does the plan dictate as a proper response to such a situation? Again, you could add more volume - but obviously that won't help since you've already sufficiently stimulated growth. Or we can add more rest - which seems reasonable.

And, I did make up that definition - based on my understanding of it and an attempt to define/simplify. I didn't lift it from a book or a study. I'm not saying that overtraining is some disease or that it will ruin your life. I mean, you can overtrain by doing the 2 chest workouts in one day that I suggested, and then provide rest and probably be recovered in a week or less if you're the average person, and maybe be done growing in 10 days or less. Maybe the timeframes are shorter even.

 

[Jiigzz]

Jiggz, I didn't say that if you train chest in the morning and then train back tonight, I said if you train chest in the morning and then hit it (chest) again tonight. You will most likely see a loss of strength tonight if you attempt that and you truly went 100% this morning. Because you haven't recovered.

I agree, people go into the gym with no plan - and if you are going into the gym, busting your ass and not seeing results, what is the solution? Add more volume? Add more rest? How do you formulate a plan that deals with these. These are the questions that underlie training programs, and you can utilize the programs (5X5, 5/3/1, etc) without knowing the reasons, just following the protocol, or you can understand the protocol.

I never said that people can't progress on 2-a-days. Either.

Ah, I see I misread that. I thought you said hit chest then go in and hit back In this case, no you likely won't see an improvement, but that doesn't necessitate not being able to hit it 2-3 days later or training another muscle group the next day.

Busting your ass does not imply results - train smart, not hard (although I would agree you need both but for arguments sake, simply working hard does not produce results). I cannot give you an answer because there is no context - once you bring a context into the situation and I am able to see their plan (or construct one if they don't have one) then I can determine what they need. I can agree with what you're saying about recovery being an important component, where we differ is the length of that recovery (also their is a difference between rest between sets and rests between workouts).

In order for an improvement to occur you must introduce a new stimulus to adapt to. Volume is one way to produce a new stimulus, decreased rest periods is another or increasing if the training requires it (training a particular energy system, however the work rate must also match the recovery rate to induce a response), you can increase the frequency (2x per week, 3x per week etc), you can allow a deload etc.

What is a common occurrence in a gym is for people to do 10 sets of 8 of bench every Monday for the rest of their lives (very generalised but I hope it paints a picture). They may come out like they had a mean session but the question is whether or not they invoked a new stimulus or simply maintaining the one they have already adapted to. A great example of the need for a stimulus is seen when people go to space, if they stop exercising their bones will rapidly demineralise and their muscles will rapidly atrophy as the need for bones and muscles in space where there is no gravity is next to zero. The stimulus is no longer there so they regress.

 

[Shasow]

Ah, I see I misread that. I thought you said hit chest then go in and hit back In this case, no you likely won't see an improvement, but that doesn't necessitate not being able to hit it 2-3 days later or training another muscle group the next day.

Busting your ass does not imply results - train smart, not hard (although I would agree you need both but for arguments sake, simply working hard does not produce results). I cannot give you an answer because there is no context - once you bring a context into the situation and I am able to see their plan (or construct one if they don't have one) then I can determine what they need. I can agree with what you're saying about recovery being an important component, where we differ is the length of that recovery (also their is a difference between rest between sets and rests between workouts).

In order for an improvement to occur you must introduce a new stimulus to adapt to. Volume is one way to produce a new stimulus, decreased rest periods is another or increasing if the training requires it (training a particular energy system, however the work rate must also match the recovery rate to induce a response), you can increase the frequency (2x per week, 3x per week etc), you can allow a deload etc.

What is a common occurrence in a gym is for people to do 10 sets of 8 of bench every Monday for the rest of their lives (very generalised but I hope it paints a picture). They may come out like they had a mean session but the question is whether or not they invoked a new stimulus or simply maintaining the one they have already adapted to. A great example of the need for a stimulus is seen when people go to space, if they stop exercising their bones will rapidly demineralise and their muscles will rapidly atrophy as the need for bones and muscles in space where there is no gravity is next to zero. The stimulus is no longer there so they regress.

So whats the answer? If you go to space make sure you take all your PEDs.

Nah, good read mate.

 

[BigLarry]

Sorry if I'm jumping on this a little late, but this is what I think.

When you go to the gym whether it be 3, 4 or 7 days a week and have workouts last past an hour then I don't consider that over training. Like many have mentioned before there's more to just volume, but I'm sure if a person body was at point of overtraining you would notice by lack of results or fatigue, and maybe even weakening state of physicality.

I really don't like how there is a set parameter for gym time such as an hour and anytime after is a waste because cortisol is said to start being produced because you are now over training. I feel that overtraining is something more specific and particular to your own body and your own limits. If you can't stay in the gym for more than an hour or can't lift as frequently but are busting your ass every minute than props to you, but if another person prefers hours of being in the gym and sees results as well then why are there an argument.

I don't even contribute longer workouts to people on steroids or having some affinity for being able to lift longer. I usually lift for two and half hours or more and go everyday of the week. Have I considered that I'm overtraining? No. I see results and that's what matters; I'm sure if someone put me on a conditioning circuit I could only last for an hour before I start passing out.

So I think this question is more personal than a typical forum post could answer.

^^Jiigzz makes a very valid point.

 

[Tufts604]

Big Larry the point you made regarding being in the gym to long is a good one. regardless of if it is the most productive long workouts arent what make one overtrained or whatever i feel overtrained is "weak and flulike no strngth in any muscles hard to wake etc). high CnS demands and lack of rest time is major factor IMO

 

[Tufts604]

ill say again though it doesn't matter if you are actually "overtrained". what matters is if you are doing too much. You may not be "overtrained" but still need time off. If your tired and sore who cares if you are "overtrained" just listen to your body and take time off as needed. you dont need to label it anything. A lot of people's arguments in regards are purely semantics. People argue over the definition or if they actually are overtrained. End of the day all that matters is have you recouped enough to benefit from your workout.

 

[BigLarry]

ill say again though it doesn't matter if you are actually "overtrained". what matters is if you are doing too much. You may not be "overtrained" but still need time off. If your tired and sore who cares if you are "overtrained" just listen to your body and take time off as needed. you dont need to label it anything. A lot of people's arguments in regards are purely semantics. People argue over the definition or if they actually are overtrained. End of the day all that matters is have you recouped enough to benefit from your workout.

^^Exactly, couldn't say it better myself. If someone were to have a great leg workout and are incredibly sore the next day the typical thought is to rest and heal to do legs again, but say instead you do it again the next day you could risk injury and slow down recovery.

Good rule of thumb if you can't sit down or get up from the toilet without cringing from pain then you shouldn't be squatting or trying to overwork your legs even more in the gym.

Just like said above, it may not be "overtraining" but you still need to give your body the opportunity to heal and grow.

 

[jaces]

Aren't you like 19?

and your point is?

 

[jaces]

Jiggz, I didn't say that if you train chest in the morning and then train back tonight, I said if you train chest in the morning and then hit it (chest) again tonight. You will most likely see a loss of strength tonight if you attempt that and you truly went 100% this morning. Because you haven't recovered.

I agree, people go into the gym with no plan - and if you are going into the gym, busting your ass and not seeing results, what is the solution? Add more volume? Add more rest? How do you formulate a plan that deals with these. These are the questions that underlie training programs, and you can utilize the programs (5X5, 5/3/1, etc) without knowing the reasons, just following the protocol, or you can understand the protocol.

I never said that people can't progress on 2-a-days. Either.

As to your last paragraph - I 100% agree. Just because I use the wrong definition doesn't change anything. However, what is your definition? I'm sincerely asking. It seems to me that "Over" "Training" means training too much, or too hard, or too long. How do you define what is too much or too hard or too long? I've done that - you are not allowing for sufficient time between bouts to allow for growth. Maybe my definition is wrong, but you haven't provided an alternative.

I mean, again, as simple as it gets, if you are stimulating growth in a workout and then don't see results in the following workout, why? What does the plan dictate as a proper response to such a situation? Again, you could add more volume - but obviously that won't help since you've already sufficiently stimulated growth. Or we can add more rest - which seems reasonable.

And, I did make up that definition - based on my understanding of it and an attempt to define/simplify. I didn't lift it from a book or a study. I'm not saying that overtraining is some disease or that it will ruin your life. I mean, you can overtrain by doing the 2 chest workouts in one day that I suggested, and then provide rest and probably be recovered in a week or less if you're the average person, and maybe be done growing in 10 days or less. Maybe the timeframes are shorter even.

one of ben pakulski's plans works like that,low rep low volume in the morning then higher rep medium volume in the evening,,

 

[jaces]

^^Exactly, couldn't say it better myself. If someone were to have a great leg workout and are incredibly sore the next day the typical thought is to rest and heal to do legs again, but say instead you do it again the next day you could risk injury and slow down recovery.

Good rule of thumb if you can't sit down or get up from the toilet without cringing from pain then you shouldn't be squatting or trying to overwork your legs even more in the gym.

Just like said above, it may not be "overtraining" but you still need to give your body the opportunity to heal and grow.

I agree.. but in some cases it can be beneficial for a bodybuilder because you have a beter ''feel'' for that muscle so you can lightly train it the day after... and lots of programs use high frequency like smolov.. so based on that its a balance between freq. x volume x intensity x recovery

 

[BigLarry]

Your point is valid and I agree that moving the sore muscle and stretching it with light weight will help to move blood around and give good mind muscle connection.
I guess I should have made the point to say in my example above that going hard on a already really sore muscle will put you in a risk of injury and slow recovery. So yea I would agree stretching and movement with light weights on a sore area would be okay to do.

 

[Rodja]

and your point is?

You're too young and inexperienced on this topic. Training at 29 is worlds different than training at 19.

I agree.. but in some cases it can be beneficial for a bodybuilder because you have a beter ''feel'' for that muscle so you can lightly train it the day after... and lots of programs use high frequency like smolov.. so based on that its a balance between freq. x volume x intensity x recovery

The goals of a program like Smolov is worlds apart from a BB'er. It completely underscores the differences of muscle v movement, but that's a different conversation.

There's not a damn equation because it's phase dependent. Recovery is one side and the other components including life are on the other. How those add up and whether or not you want them equal at that moment are going to vary (or they should at least).

 

[jaces]

o so training is only for people at 29 years old?? what a joke.. ive been training from the age of 12 not 15 or 17 like most people .. and yes i know its different but why shouldnt i give my views?? most guys in the gym are between 16 amd 24 so my opinion would be more relative than yours

 

[jaces]

and why are they different?? you stated in another forum about a benchpress is that there is almost no difference in how a bb should perform a benchpress vs a powerlifter..

 

[Shasow]

Just shoot him mate.

 

[Jiigzz]

ill say again though it doesn't matter if you are actually "overtrained". what matters is if you are doing too much. You may not be "overtrained" but still need time off. If your tired and sore who cares if you are "overtrained" just listen to your body and take time off as needed. you dont need to label it anything. A lot of people's arguments in regards are purely semantics. People argue over the definition or if they actually are overtrained. End of the day all that matters is have you recouped enough to benefit from your workout.

It may not mean anything to you, but auto regulation doesn't occur with athletes as it does for the average gym user - context matters. Just because something is unimportant to you, doesn't mean the same is true for everyone.

If a coach stopped training someone on the basis they were "sore", then you'd have very few pro athletes.

 

[Tufts604]

It may not mean anything to you, but auto regulation doesn't occur with athletes as it does for the average gym user - context matters. Just because something is unimportant to you, doesn't mean the same is true for everyone.

If a coach stopped training someone on the basis they were "sore", then you'd have very few pro athletes.

Hmmm.... do you feel most athletes train in a manner than severely depletes cns? I sincerely ask this as I am no athlete.
I was under the impression that volume had much less to do with overtraining than working to falure in lower reps. SPrinting Mobility endurance I thought did not create as great of a demand on cns therefore I would have assumed you would want to avoid overtaxing atheletes cns so they can train more often. Not to say a perfessional bb isnt an athelete but there training methods would have more potential to create overtraining, no?

I suppose by tired and sore I don't mean Ive trained legs and my legs hurt . I suppose oversimplified a bit there needs to be a distingueshing factor of what type of soreness it is. I suppose now I can intuitively know whether i can train through successfully or not. I find on days I do decide to push through the "other sore" I always have no strength, everthying feels twice as heavy even though the muscle should be fresh.This ease of differentiating makes the discission an easy one for me. I completely agree that skipping because of lactic acid build up may not always be productive. the soreness I refer to is more a flu like sore weak everywhere type of thing. comes with general tiredness, and changes in mood. far different than the soreness after a hard leg day.
AM i out to lunch here
I see how my statement oversimplifies but it doesnt need to be that complicated either? if local soreness, you may be okay to train although adaquate rest is still necassary. say doing a high volume split if your legs are sore and arms are schedualed go for it.. But When the body feels tired and muscles you know should be fresh are weak from the time you wake up its time for a few days off do you not agree? I really cannot describe the feeling as anything other than flu like.

 

[Rodja]

o so training is only for people at 29 years old?? what a joke.. ive been training from the age of 12 not 15 or 17 like most people .. and yes i know its different but why shouldnt i give my views?? most guys in the gym are between 16 amd 24 so my opinion would be more relative than yours

Over double the training experience does play a factor and, let's be honest, those first 5 years we're all pretty clueless on how to design a template. Cool, so you're in a gym with a bunch of inexperienced kids...what's your point?

and why are they different?? you stated in another forum about a benchpress is that there is almost no difference in how a bb should perform a benchpress vs a powerlifter..

Because technique and template design are the same thing, right? Really shot yourself in the foot with that statement.

 

[Jiigzz]

Hmmm.... do you feel most athletes train in a manner than severely depletes cns? I sincerely ask this as I am no athlete.
I was under the impression that volume had much less to do with overtraining than working to falure in lower reps. SPrinting Mobility endurance I thought did not create as great of a demand on cns therefore I would have assumed you would want to avoid overtaxing atheletes cns so they can train more often. Not to say a perfessional bb isnt an athelete but there training methods would have more potential to create overtraining, no?

I suppose by tired and sore I don't mean Ive trained legs and my legs hurt . I suppose oversimplified a bit there needs to be a distingueshing factor of what type of soreness it is. I suppose now I can intuitively know whether i can train through successfully or not. I find on days I do decide to push through the "other sore" I always have no strength, everthying feels twice as heavy even though the muscle should be fresh.This ease of differentiating makes the discission an easy one for me. I completely agree that skipping because of lactic acid build up may not always be productive. the soreness I refer to is more a flu like sore weak everywhere type of thing. comes with general tiredness, and changes in mood. far different than the soreness after a hard leg day.
AM i out to lunch here
I see how my statement oversimplifies but it doesnt need to be that complicated either? if local soreness, you may be okay to train although adaquate rest is still necassary. say doing a high volume split if your legs are sore and arms are schedualed go for it.. But When the body feels tired and muscles you know should be fresh are weak from the time you wake up its time for a few days off do you not agree? I really cannot describe the feeling as anything other than flu like.

Depends on the athlete and the sport. Maximal sprinting taxes the CNS as does higher intensity work for weightlifting.

But don't get me wrong, I agree with what you said completely - most people need not worry about overtraining as their gym work rarely produces the required intensity to lead to overtraining (especially as many gym goers will take time off as they need it and avoid that state) but for some people, knowing when it occurs or under what conditions is important (or even just to know that they are generally "safe" from that true state).

But I get what you mean about just taking time off - no need to label something when you can just rest for a few days

 

[jaces]

Over double the training experience does play a factor and, let's be honest, those first 5 years we're all pretty clueless on how to design a template. Cool, so you're in a gym with a bunch of inexperienced kids...what's your point?



Because technique and template design are the same thing, right? Really shot yourself in the foot with that statement.

so then why is smolov not good for a bodybuilder?

 

[Rodja]

so then why is smolov not good for a bodybuilder?

Because improving their 1RM for benching is a huge priority, correct?

 

[herderdude]

Smolov works primarily through neural adaptations and the effects subside. It's designed to hit one big squat on test day, not to build muscle or have a huge lasting effect on the lift.

 

[jgvg]

I believe overtraining is real. Your muscles are quick to recover, but its the other stuff you need to worry about - tendons/ligaments don't have the same bloodflow and thus over time become more prone to injury. An injury can arguably be seen as a result of over-training 3-6-12 months before even the first sense of pain.

"Overtraining" is great for muscle growth both when on and off cycle, its just when you do it for extended durations it can become a problem.

 

[Tufts604]

I believe overtraining is real. Your muscles are quick to recover, but its the other stuff you need to worry about - tendons/ligaments don't have the same bloodflow and thus over time become more prone to injury. An injury can arguably be seen as a result of over-training 3-6-12 months before even the first sense of pain.

"Overtraining" is great for muscle growth both when on and off cycle, its just when you do it for extended durations it can become a problem.

I think we share outlooks although you didn't mention CNS. Any number of things can result in "overtraning" why it must be labeled so specifically i don't understand.

 

[Tufts604]

o•ver•train (ˌoʊ vərˈtreɪn)
v.i., v.t.
to train to an injuriously excessive degree: risking overtraining by running over 90 miles a week.
[1870–75]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.Given the definition

I do not see how it can not exist. Do people really thinkk that there is no limit to the amount of work one's body can handle. Most people will never reach that but to say it doesn't exist. Just stop thinking about regularities and think extremes.

 

[kisaj]

Or just stop thinking about it and get your ass to work.

 

[Jiigzz]

I think we share outlooks although you didn't mention CNS. Any number of things can result in "overtraning" why it must be labeled so specifically i don't understand.

Semantics yes but overtraining is a specific condition, its not something you just say when you feel sore.

If I went to a shop and tried to buy a TV with seashells but got rejected, I couldnt argue that my definition of money as being seashells means the shop owner must accept my seashells. It is a specific condition bought about by numerous things (elevated external stress, lack of autoregulation for intensity, chronic releases of hormones, loss of adaptation etc).

Under recovery is not over training. It might be semantics but to some people its a real sufferable condition and yet everyone thinks they get it weekly lol

 

[Jiigzz]

o•ver•train (ˌoʊ vərˈtreɪn)
v.i., v.t.
to train to an injuriously excessive degree: risking overtraining by running over 90 miles a week.
[1870–75]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.Given the definition

I do not see how it can not exist. Do people really thinkk that there is no limit to the amount of work one's body can handle. Most people will never reach that but to say it doesn't exist. Just stop thinking about regularities and think extremes.

A true definition doesnt use the word in question in the definition. The 90 mile is arbitrary.

Use google scholar and type overtraining and the CNS and start from there

 

[HIT4ME]

Semantics yes but overtraining is a specific condition, its not something you just say when you feel sore.

If I went to a shop and tried to buy a TV with seashells but got rejected, I couldnt argue that my definition of money as being seashells means the shop owner must accept my seashells. It is a specific condition bought about by numerous things (elevated external stress, lack of autoregulation for intensity, chronic releases of hormones, loss of adaptation etc).

Under recovery is not over training. It might be semantics but to some people its a real sufferable condition and yet everyone thinks they get it weekly lol

A true definition doesnt use the word in question in the definition. The 90 mile is arbitrary.

Use google scholar and type overtraining and the CNS and start from there

I'm sorry man, but you are wrong on both accounts. That definition didn't use the word in the definition, it gave an example of the use after the definition.

If overtraining is NOT under recovery - what is it? What is YOUR definition of overtraining, you keep saying it is specific, but give no specific definition. Under recovering, under adapting - these are the two key components to overtraining, and chronic overtraining and overtraining are two different things. And overtraining CAN be used for long term positive effects potentially. But people are so afraid of the word overtraining that they have to call this "over reaching" like it changes anything. Overtraining for a short period of time, and then resting can have a positive result too - so don't get me wrong, but overtraining is exactly what the two words entail "Over" "Training".

As Tufts said, there is a limit to how much you can do.

I know we differ on what that limit is (and I'm not saying that most people can only train every 15 days) but more is not always better. And if you are working hard, you can't work as much. You cannot work hard and work long. But people want to believe they can, and in my experience these are the people who don't generate sufficient intensity.

I actually had someone come to workout with me once. I wrote down my workout in my journal. He said, "That's all we're doing?" I said, "Yes." and we began the workout. He never finished the workout. He started puking. He was used to doing lots of volume.

On the same hand, he may have lower intensity, but I probably couldn't keep up with his volume and obviously maybe I could benefit from some of that training.

Anyway, hate to single you out on this - Jigzz and Rodja - you are both experienced and educated and helpful on this board, so it isn't personal, and I know that my views are in the minority, but I think you're just missing the simplicity behind it all. Too much knowledge up there maybe.

 

[HIT4ME]

Or just stop thinking about it and get your ass to work.

I think this is the thing - people want to work hard, so they're afraid to admit they could be doing too much. But there is a limit to what you can recover from. Mentzer always used the idea of a sun tan, so I will steal that. If you go out in the sun and want the darkest tan you can get, you don't go out on the first day and just spend hours in the hot sun if you're most people. Some people can do this and they will tan. Most will burn. Some will burn very quickly.

For the majority of people, they need a specific amount of sun to create a response, they will adapt, then they go and do it again, and they will adapt more and so on until they have a full on tan. For these people, too much exposure will just make them burn because their body will not be able to adapt and the damage will be too great.

On the same hand, you don't go out in the weak sun and spend 15 minutes and expect to tan.

Hard work can come with intensity of effort, or through volume. They should be used intelligently though.

 

[Tufts604]

A true definition doesnt use the word in question in the definition. The 90 mile is arbitrary.

Use google scholar and type overtraining and the CNS and start from there

lol my bad. I am aware the 90 miles thing is arbitrary. I am just trying to find an actual definition. Ill look more in sports related texts.
Despite that I think it holds some weight. Any time you are doing excessive work you may be overtraining whether you are fatigued at a cns level or not. Even without overtaxing cns I still think you can do too much. I think variance is the key. I've had great results training two a days 5-6 days a week. I've also had great results training doing full body workouts with little volume. I am not saying high volume has o place or vice versa. I found during the adaption period when changing routines or training style has often spurred the most growth. Maybe a tad off topic. w.e.

 

[Tufts604]

I think this is the thing - people want to work hard, so they're afraid to admit they could be doing too much. But there is a limit to what you can recover from. Mentzer always used the idea of a sun tan, so I will steal that. If you go out in the sun and want the darkest tan you can get, you don't go out on the first day and just spend hours in the hot sun if you're most people. Some people can do this and they will tan. Most will burn. Some will burn very quickly.

For the majority of people, they need a specific amount of sun to create a response, they will adapt, then they go and do it again, and they will adapt more and so on until they have a full on tan. For these people, too much exposure will just make them burn because their body will not be able to adapt and the damage will be too great.

On the same hand, you don't go out in the weak sun and spend 15 minutes and expect to tan.

Hard work can come with intensity of effort, or through volume. They should be used intelligently though.

I like that analogy.

 

[kisaj]

I think your fingers are overtraining, HIT4ME.

 

[Tufts604]

Hit4Me has a valid point. ALthough I disagree with "people" in general wanting to work hard. Maybe many members of this forum work hard. maybe you go to a serious gym full of bbers and powerlifters or whatever the case may be. I do not think in general most people want to work hard. even most people who work out don't want to put in anything extra beyond their workout, if they even put much into that. Despite this I don't thin many who are doing to much are actually overtrained but just doing to much. But of course it is case dependant.

I will admit my focus is not on training at the moment. I still always prep and rarely miss workouts but my heads not in it like it was. My focus is on bringing other aspects of life into focus until I am satisfied then I will shift bac to focusing on the gym. Right now it is routine.

 

[BigLarry]

I think this shouldn't be an argument over one principle meaning because when we work on achieving a better self and improving our physics it's our duty to get to know our bodies and what works and doesn't work. One persons overtraining could be another persons under training. It's all about what your body is conditioned to and what your genetics limit you to.

 

[Tufts604]

I think this shouldn't be an argument over one principle meaning because when we work on achieving a better self and improving our physics it's our duty to get to know our bodies and what works and doesn't work. One persons overtraining could be another persons under training. It's all about what your body is conditioned to and what your genetics limit you to.

One hundred percent it is very individual but everyone has a limit . IMO Even the best don't train all day only breaking to eat. Everyone can do too much few do.

 

[EMPIREMIND]

I think this shouldn't be an argument over one principle meaning because when we work on achieving a better self and improving our physics it's our duty to get to know our bodies and what works and doesn't work. One persons overtraining could be another persons under training. It's all about what your body is conditioned to and what your genetics limit you to.

^^^^this

 

[HIT4ME]

I think your fingers are overtraining, HIT4ME.

They may be sore - does that mean I can't type again until they are no longer sore?

 

[Shasow]

They may be sore - does that mean I can't type again until they are no longer sore?

Just up your calories.

 

[HIT4ME]

Hit4Me has a valid point. ALthough I disagree with "people" in general wanting to work hard. Maybe many members of this forum work hard. maybe you go to a serious gym full of bbers and powerlifters or whatever the case may be. I do not think in general most people want to work hard. even most people who work out don't want to put in anything extra beyond their workout, if they even put much into that. Despite this I don't thin many who are doing to much are actually overtrained but just doing to much. But of course it is case dependant.

I will admit my focus is not on training at the moment. I still always prep and rarely miss workouts but my heads not in it like it was. My focus is on bringing other aspects of life into focus until I am satisfied then I will shift bac to focusing on the gym. Right now it is routine.

I said they WANT to work hard, not that they DO work hard

And maybe you would benefit from short, Mentzer style workouts - they're hard, but you can be done in 15 minutes if you follow it to a T. Is it ideal for a baseball player or other athlete, probably not - Jigzz is totally right about that - but for just muscle strength and size....it may be more in line with your life goals at the moment.

 

[HIT4ME]

Just up your calories.

LOL, you wouldn't BELIEVE the GAINZ in my fingers guys.

 

[Tufts604]

I said they WANT to work hard, not that they DO work hard

And maybe you would benefit from short, Mentzer style workouts - they're hard, but you can be done in 15 minutes if you follow it to a T. Is it ideal for a baseball player or other athlete, probably not - Jigzz is totally right about that - but for just muscle strength and size....it may be more in line with your life goals at the moment.

LOL yes wanting to and doing it are very different. missed your point slightly.
I am working fairly condensed now but I will surely look into it. I do shift work so on work days I keep it short and when I am off I have adaquate time to workout with volume if I choose too. None the less I will look into it. If you have any good links I'd appreciate them.

 

[Jiigzz]

I'm sorry man, but you are wrong on both accounts. That definition didn't use the word in the definition, it gave an example of the use after the definition.

If overtraining is NOT under recovery - what is it? What is YOUR definition of overtraining, you keep saying it is specific, but give no specific definition. Under recovering, under adapting - these are the two key components to overtraining, and chronic overtraining and overtraining are two different things. And overtraining CAN be used for long term positive effects potentially. But people are so afraid of the word overtraining that they have to call this "over reaching" like it changes anything. Overtraining for a short period of time, and then resting can have a positive result too - so don't get me wrong, but overtraining is exactly what the two words entail "Over" "Training".

As Tufts said, there is a limit to how much you can do.

I know we differ on what that limit is (and I'm not saying that most people can only train every 15 days) but more is not always better. And if you are working hard, you can't work as much. You cannot work hard and work long. But people want to believe they can, and in my experience these are the people who don't generate sufficient intensity.

I actually had someone come to workout with me once. I wrote down my workout in my journal. He said, "That's all we're doing?" I said, "Yes." and we began the workout. He never finished the workout. He started puking. He was used to doing lots of volume.

On the same hand, he may have lower intensity, but I probably couldn't keep up with his volume and obviously maybe I could benefit from some of that training.

Anyway, hate to single you out on this - Jigzz and Rodja - you are both experienced and educated and helpful on this board, so it isn't personal, and I know that my views are in the minority, but I think you're just missing the simplicity behind it all. Too much knowledge up there maybe.

I give up man. You clearly are set on your views that you know what overtraining is despite admitting you dont research much. The term you are assigning to overtraining isnt the actual definition, your are simply basing your definition off the combination of two words.

If you would like, I can write you a program designed to push you into overtraining so that you can feel the difference for yourself

 

[Jiigzz]

I'm sorry man, but you are wrong on both accounts. That definition didn't use the word in the definition, it gave an example of the use after the definition.

If overtraining is NOT under recovery - what is it? What is YOUR definition of overtraining, you keep saying it is specific, but give no specific definition. Under recovering, under adapting - these are the two key components to overtraining, and chronic overtraining and overtraining are two different things. And overtraining CAN be used for long term positive effects potentially. But people are so afraid of the word overtraining that they have to call this "over reaching" like it changes anything. Overtraining for a short period of time, and then resting can have a positive result too - so don't get me wrong, but overtraining is exactly what the two words entail "Over" "Training".

As Tufts said, there is a limit to how much you can do.

I know we differ on what that limit is (and I'm not saying that most people can only train every 15 days) but more is not always better. And if you are working hard, you can't work as much. You cannot work hard and work long. But people want to believe they can, and in my experience these are the people who don't generate sufficient intensity.

I actually had someone come to workout with me once. I wrote down my workout in my journal. He said, "That's all we're doing?" I said, "Yes." and we began the workout. He never finished the workout. He started puking. He was used to doing lots of volume.

On the same hand, he may have lower intensity, but I probably couldn't keep up with his volume and obviously maybe I could benefit from some of that training.

Anyway, hate to single you out on this - Jigzz and Rodja - you are both experienced and educated and helpful on this board, so it isn't personal, and I know that my views are in the minority, but I think you're just missing the simplicity behind it all. Too much knowledge up there maybe.

I don't mind debate, but to say that both Rodja and I are overthinking it because your opinion and dictionary definition differs from our evidence based stance is mind boggling. Puking is not over training. He simply isn't adapted to that workload.

There is absolutely a difference between over reaching and over training; in this case, I actually suggest doing more reading because you are arguing for things that have clear distinctions.

If you want to do more reading, I can provide you with the FTs for these studies:

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Citation/1991/02000/Overtraining__A_Review_of_the_Signs,_Symptoms_and.6.aspx
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/32/2/107.short
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/H07-080#.VZ8NpBuqqko
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-585-34048-7_2#page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200333050-00002#page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-199112010-00004
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-199112010-00004#page-1
http://sph.sagepub.com/content/4/2/128.short
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/9/642.short
http://jap.physiology.org/content/101/6/1664.short

There are different stages in the adaptive response. Over-training is at the very end of the scale being the absolute worst and taking the longest to come back from (several months as opposed to days). Before over training occurs you have over reaching which is a planned increase in intensity that results in plateau or regress followed by an increase in performance.

Overtraining is operationally defined as an increase in training volume and/or intensity that results in long-term performance decrements (i.e., ≥2 wk) (3, 17, 18, 22), and it resembles the exhaustion, or third, stage of Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome concerning the biological response to stressors (43). Less severe forms of this process are often termed overreaching and can be recovered from in a short period of time (i.e., <2 wk) (3, 17, 18, 22). In actuality, a plateau in performance improvements may also result, but this is often difficult to differentiate from normal training progression .