Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Article: Golden Rules Of Lifting

So intensity is key and yet longer rest periods to regain almost 100% of strength back is needed? Isn't that an oxymoron?

I've been cutting rest time down to raise my intensity and shorten workouts. I would say I have 75% of my strength for my next set and use about 30 sec rest time. I used to use 1 min, always.
 
For a short workout where the object is to build muscle mass means you'll be lifting heavier weights. The longer rest is required to lift the heavier weights for 4-6 reps to failure. If your resting for only 30sec you probably wouldn't be able to perform your next set if you truly lifted to failure in 4-6 reps on your last set. When they talk about intensity I think they mean lifting truly to failure on each set, not necessarily the pace of the workout.
 
6andaHalf said:
So intensity is key and yet longer rest periods to regain almost 100% of strength back is needed? Isn't that an oxymoron?

I've been cutting rest time down to raise my intensity and shorten workouts. I would say I have 75% of my strength for my next set and use about 30 sec rest time. I used to use 1 min, always.
Click to expand...



Intensity doesn't necessarily mean the pace of the workout. Any workout that utilizes heavy weights with 4-6 reps to failure is going to require a longer rest period to get your strength back.
 
Well, I understood his point well. For a Mass gaining cycle, intensity should be met with weight rather than rest period or volume.
 
6andaHalf said:
So intensity is key and yet longer rest periods to regain almost 100% of strength back is needed? Isn't that an oxymoron?

I've been cutting rest time down to raise my intensity and shorten workouts. I would say I have 75% of my strength for my next set and use about 30 sec rest time. I used to use 1 min, always.
Click to expand...

Intensity in a clinical setting is referring to %1 rm &/or effort put into a set or sprint (%top speed) not overall.
 
Well I guess if you do things the same for long enough than results obviously diminish. I've always lifted heavy 6 rep sets with almost 100% recharge in between sets.

Now that I only give myself 30 sec rest and shoot for the same weight/ rep scheme I've gotten increased results in size. I do see all of your points though. After I get comfortable lifting the same weight and reps with 30 secs as I did with the 1 min rest, I will raise the weight and go back to 1 min rest. Seems to work for me as a progressive load.
 
Excellent article, seriously.

6andahalf - intensity refers to % of 1RM lifted (in other words, how hard you work on a set by set basis).

Longer rest periods = higher intensity.
 
mr.cooper69 said:
Excellent article, seriously.

6andahalf - intensity refers to % of 1RM lifted (in other words, how hard you work on a set by set basis).

Longer rest periods = higher intensity.
Click to expand...

I do understand...

So a workout @ 70% 1rm to failure is still not considered "high intensity" because its not 90-95% for less reps and still ultimately reaching failure??

As much as I understand, it is still confusing by definition of the word "intensity". If sprinting on uphill is considered HIIT then what is sprinting on flat ground? Not as "high intensity"? I understand you are using near 100% "effort" either way but you will not last as long uphill just like lifting your 70% 1rm to failure vs 90% to failure. Both still forms of full on "intensity". I can still lift @ 90% of 1rm for 1 rep and it still not be a form of "intensity".

Although I may not be using the definition like the fitness world does, you should be able to reach high levels of intensity through many rep ranges IMO.
 
6andaHalf said:
Haha right? Looks a bit too gnarly to be giving me advice on natty lifting.... or 99% of people on this forum
Click to expand...

HAHA gnarly indeed...
 
6andaHalf said:
I do understand...

So a workout @ 70% 1rm to failure is still not considered "high intensity" because its not 90-95% for less reps and still ultimately reaching failure??

As much as I understand, it is still confusing by definition of the word "intensity". If sprinting on uphill is considered HIIT then what is sprinting on flat ground? Not as "high intensity"? I understand you are using near 100% "effort" either way but you will not last as long uphill just like lifting your 70% 1rm to failure vs 90% to failure. Both still forms of full on "intensity". I can still lift @ 90% of 1rm for 1 rep and it still not be a form of "intensity".

Although I may not be using the definition like the fitness world does, you should be able to reach high levels of intensity through many rep ranges IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a little confusing I agree. But think of it as % closer to your MAX effort and it makes a lil more sense. Shorter rest does increase intensity but is an glycolytic aerobic (endurance) intensity increase, not your anaerobic power or phosphocreatine sys which builds muscle power n strength
 
I hate when people talk trash speculating on weather or not an athlete is natty just because they have a physique thats beyond what most of us can achieve without the aid of drugs
 
Oscar said:
I hate when people talk trash speculating on weather or not an athlete is natty just because they have a physique thats beyond what most of us can achieve without the aid of drugs
Click to expand...


True. I think of a few things when that mindset comes into play.

1) The rules don't change when you are on gear. In fact, things just get amplified. Training, diet and lifestyle all must remain as the cornerstone of your success even with a gram of test in your system.

2) I know plenty of guys on gear and have been on it for years and look nothing like that guy. This tells me that gear alone doesn't do it, and I know this from experience. Knowledge on training and diet are still very much 80% of the success behind guys like this.
 
Oscar said:
I hate when people talk trash speculating on weather or not an athlete is natty just because they have a physique thats beyond what most of us can achieve without the aid of drugs
Click to expand...

I understand that with his AMAZING genetics, perfect routine and diet and 110% effort for YEARS and YEARS... and YEARS, that there MIGHT be a small chance he could be natural. I still think its a 1 in 50 million "natty" body. His arms are our upper legs.

fueledpassion said:
True. I think of a few things when that mindset comes into play.

1) The rules don't change when you are on gear. In fact, things just get amplified. Training, diet and lifestyle all must remain as the cornerstone of your success even with a gram of test in your system.

2) I know plenty of guys on gear and have been on it for years and look nothing like that guy. This tells me that gear alone doesn't do it, and I know this from experience. Knowledge on training and diet are still very much 80% of the success behind guys like this.
Click to expand...

Well the point here is not that he works just as hard or harder because he's on gear. Most of us know its SO DAMN hard to look like that even on gear.

It's because he claims NOT to be on gear.
 
6andaHalf said:
I understand that with his AMAZING genetics, perfect routine and diet and 110% effort for YEARS and YEARS... and YEARS, that there MIGHT be a small chance he could be natural. I still think its a 1 in 50 million "natty" body. His arms are our upper legs.



Well the point here is not that he works just as hard or harder because he's on gear. Most of us know its SO DAMN hard to look like that even on gear.

It's because he claims NOT to be on gear.
Click to expand...

Then I would say emulate someone that you know is natty.
 
I question if he has cycled or not, or if he has incredible genetics coupled by an iron program. Could be all of those things. I'd be curious to see his diet.

These tips were a fantastic read, I utilized this advice in my workout today.
 
Oscar said:
I hate when people talk trash speculating on weather or not an athlete is natty just because they have a physique thats beyond what most of us can achieve without the aid of drugs
Click to expand...

I think it is just because when you have been working at this as long as some of us (I have been lifting since age 22, am 28), you see some of these guys and you wonder how in the hell they get the way they are. I know this guy has busted his ass absolutely 100% and I admire him in his strength and this article was inspiring as all hell.

But there are genetic limits to the human body, and sometimes the role models we see ahead of us are not natural (not saying anything about this guy in the article). They've enhanced their hormone levels in their system and basically have created a mutant in the sense of altering their physiology. There are safe ways to cycle, but ultimately those lifters whom have cycled and claim not to can be bad representations to the weight lifting community. Because they inspire people to reach for their physique, which is an unobtainable goal unless they also cycle through gear in addition to having great genetics.
 
get_cut said:
I think it is just because when you have been working at this as long as some of us (I have been lifting since age 22, am 28), you see some of these guys and you wonder how in the hell they get the way they are. I know this guy has busted his ass absolutely 100% and I admire him in his strength and this article was inspiring as all hell.

But there are genetic limits to the human body, and sometimes the role models we see ahead of us are not natural (not saying anything about this guy in the article). They've enhanced their hormone levels in their system and basically have created a mutant in the sense of altering their physiology. There are safe ways to cycle, but ultimately those lifters whom have cycled and claim not to can be bad representations to the weight lifting community. Because they inspire people to reach for their physique, which is an unobtainable goal unless they also cycle through gear in addition to having great genetics.
Click to expand...

None of that would be the case if the Feds would just get out of the way and let people do what they want. At this point, the only reason people call it cheating is because they arent willing to risk getting caught doin it. So it has to be called something other than fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top