Are heavy workouts longer than 60 minutes that bad for strength/growth?

[NYiron]

No problem. To be truthfully honest I did not even notice the caveat. I'm reading from my phone and it is a much more condensed version as I skimmed quickly I must have overlooked it.

 

[Jiigzz]

Post said research showing that glycogen levels significantly drop within an hour in non-depleted subjects. I'm by no means arguing for a that amount of volume in one day as it is counterproductive in a hypertrophic (be it sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar), but that is not the goal of that particular session for him. However, it will do a something that will greatly benefit his heavy days; it will take his conditioning to a very high level and will increase both his work capacity and recovery between sessions. As I said earlier, most templates out there are poorly designed because there is zero emphasis on conditioning and, as a generality, BB'ers are in terrible shape with a very low CV threshold.

Yeah absolutely; conditioning is not something that a BB'er incorporates into their workout which is not something I agree with, but trying to convince them itl help is a whole other story, I guess becuase their goals can be attained without it. Simply from the load of work he is performing I would hope that hypertrophy is not a goal of his, for many reasons. The last part I bolded because I think people need to read this and understand it, irregardless of why they are training. Conditioning should be essential in all workouts; I was simply arguing that perhaps the work volume and intensity required is too great to sustain over 90 minutes.

3 warm up sets is nothing. Even on speed days, I do 5-6 warm up sets before I start the working sets. Most people do not warm up optimally and, as a result, lower their strength potential.

for arguments sake -
there is a conflicting opinion out there that says "warm-up theory" is overrated and not required at all.
diffrent strokes for diffrent folks. :shrug:

I don't believe warmup sets to be a 'theory' or that they are not needed. While I get that research often conflicts in terms of stretching; I would strongly argue that warm up sets are very beneficial. A warmed muscle can produce alot more force than can a cold one; this can be explained both from a biomechanical view and a physiological one. Warming up may help prevent injury, but it also serves a greater purpose.

 

[snagencyV2.0]

I don't believe warmup sets to be a 'theory' or that they are not needed. While I get that research often conflicts in terms of stretching; I would strongly argue that warm up sets are very beneficial. A warmed muscle can produce alot more force than can a cold one; this can be explained both from a biomechanical view and a physiological one. Warming up may help prevent injury, but it also serves a greater purpose.

perhaps i missspoke of my position..
while yes it is more stretching that i refer to as conflicted research, what i meant insofar as warmup sets is that 5-6 warms are NOT required, and there are many professional strength coaches who do not advise this excessive kind of warmup.
for example, here is one strength coach statement on warms (he advises 10min cardio prior to this as well): start by performing low reps of the first few exercises in your program. Do 6 reps at 50% of the weight to be lifted for the first set, then 4 reps at 70%, and 2 reps at 90%. Rest 2 minutes and then begin your workout.
a page out of one trainers guidelines..that would be 3 warmups.
bottom line - and my whole point - is that mega-multiple sets (4, 5 6 etc) are NOT a prerequisite to maximal lifting.
if it works for you, then by all means keep doing it.
my opinion still stands that warming up is more important to abstain from injury, and should be viewed as such.