Topic of the week: Is Overtraining BS?

HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.



View attachment 121339
View attachment 121340
Hey man, the debate is good - didn't mean to say you are "over thinking" it in an insulting manner. Just saying, you have a bunch of knowledge and it may be confusing things while I'm simple. Thanks for the offer to do a training routine, which I may take you up on because I like experimenting on myself and learning, and thanks for the texts.

To show I am reading what you send (as I have time), please read the first paragraph of the first article you sent me. Pretty much says what I've been saying, all though it does preface it with "simplistically", which I understand.

"Overtraining is a complex topic because of the difficulty in adequately defining terms used to describe overtraining and the multiplicity of signs and symptoms that may be associated with overtraining. Simplistically, overtraining with respect to physical training may be defined as a plateauing and/or a decrease in performance that results from failure to tolerate or adapt to the training load. If the training load is increased for a few days and weeks, producing a decrease in performance, and subsequent rest or detraining brings performance to higher than previous levels, it has been termed over reaching or supercompensation training."

The second paragraph goes on to somewhat differentiate overtraining vs. chronic overtraining. You have gone on in your last post to show that it is more complex, and to also show there is a difference between overtraining vs. chronic overtraining - just calling it over reaching because that's the thing to do when it is used to a positive effect (although it is the same tool).

Obviously this can be made more complex, but my simple definition sufficient, whether I made it up or not.

Also, I never said puking is overtraining, I was making the distinction between volume and intensity and different adaptations.

Which all this gets back to what I've been saying for a while - I don't think the way I say things is carrying over to you effectively, because I think we're A LOT closer on things than you think, but I have slight twists, and you train athletes for more varied purposes (which requires a different set of skills), and I'm just a little more in a different direction than you. Like I said, I know I'm the minority.

My issue was, you keep saying that I am not defining overtraining or don't know what it is, but I did give you a definition, as I understand it. You said I was wrong and I just asked for YOUR definition, which you said you needed context for. Cool, I get that. Then someone else gives a definition from a dictionary and you say that is wrong too, so I asked for your definition again. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm sincerely interested in learning your definition. The articles you posted defined it, but they define it along the terms I and Tufts were saying. And I suspect this is probably along the same lines as what you really believe, because I know you know this stuff cold. If you have a better definition, I want to learn.

Anyway man, I'm hesitant to continue this for a few reasons:

1. The biggest reason is I don't wanna piss you or Rodja off, I respect you both and it's cool. I think we're way closer than you realize, with twists.

2. All this typing takes too much time and people don't want to read all that I have to say anyway. I'm long winded and I get that too.


Having said that, your last post is really great and I'm gonna read up on that shizzle and may take you up on the full texts. Thanks man.
 
Tufts604

Tufts604

New member
Awards
0
I would say I have functionally overreached maybe breached into Non'functional overreaching. My best guess. A gym buddy was telling me if you continue once overreached you will adapt. He was on a daily training progam with low volume, I do not rrecal the program but it stated not to take off days despite immense fatigue. I was doing more volume. He had told me keep pushing you will adapt. I was trying to prove to myself really that this is not always the case. I believe the low volume of the routine had much to do with his success. I learned form that and am now more in tune with when I start fuctionally overreaching. (I could be out to lunch but I am fairly confident I can feel the signs) I more meant there is a limit of what is productive more is not always better. you could be doing too much without actually being overtrained.
Do profile pics have to be pproved or something or have i done this wrong? (sidenote)
 
Tufts604

Tufts604

New member
Awards
0
I will be sure to look at your links Jiigzz. It appears you are quite knowledgeable so if you recommend a read im sure ill learn from it. I have read any articles but not many studies themselves, my opinions are made largely on my experience. oOf course anything I read I filter with real world experience, which either causes me to atand behind something or not. This I know has it's strengths and weaknesses as any biased opinion does.

May I ask Jiigzz are you formally educated or just have slighty nerdy thirst for knowledge?
 
jaces

jaces

Active member
Awards
0
I would say I have functionally overreached maybe breached into Non'functional overreaching. My best guess. A gym buddy was telling me if you continue once overreached you will adapt. He was on a daily training progam with low volume, I do not rrecal the program but it stated not to take off days despite immense fatigue. I was doing more volume. He had told me keep pushing you will adapt. I was trying to prove to myself really that this is not always the case. I believe the low volume of the routine had much to do with his success. I learned form that and am now more in tune with when I start fuctionally overreaching. (I could be out to lunch but I am fairly confident I can feel the signs) I more meant there is a limit of what is productive more is not always better. you could be doing too much without actually being overtrained.
Do profile pics have to be pproved or something or have i done this wrong? (sidenote)
i like what you are saying here, but i would add that too much can be a day to day thing not a week to week, if you feel good today and want to do 40 sets for arms or chest then why not?? and if you feel bad that day just do 12 or so..
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I will be sure to look at your links Jiigzz. It appears you are quite knowledgeable so if you recommend a read im sure ill learn from it. I have read any articles but not many studies themselves, my opinions are made largely on my experience. oOf course anything I read I filter with real world experience, which either causes me to atand behind something or not. This I know has it's strengths and weaknesses as any biased opinion does.

May I ask Jiigzz are you formally educated or just have slighty nerdy thirst for knowledge?
Formally educated in exercise science and work at a university which is how I get access to a lot of papers :)
 
herderdude

herderdude

Well-known member
Awards
0
HIT4ME you are totally correct in that you can only improve as fast as you can recover, and that doing the minimum work for the results you can realistically create in a training microcyle is optimal. I just think you're selling the human body short on its ability to build work capacity, the amount of training that can still be done in a minimalist fashion to elicit results, and the benefits that active recovery can provide in allowing you to get back to training faster.

If you spend a little time training specifically to improve work capacity rather than specific size or strength, work capacity will improve and allow your body to better recover and therefore sustain more growth stimulus for greater gains the next time you cone around to high intensity. This is what eastern sports scientists learned and perfected 50 years ago. Shifting focus throughout the training year to achieve the best result, even if at times the short term goal runs tangent to the long term goal. If you train low volume and high intensity all the time, you cannot build yourself up to the work capacity it takes to even get through the warm up routine of an elite strength athlete.

Things like targeted low intensity blood flow training, joint centration, contrast showers, and MFR can drastically improve recovery times and allow you to give yourself more pounding on hard training sessions. This is similar to the principles in the paragraph above on a smaller scale, in that not every training session feeds the long term goal of strength and size in a direct manner, but yet in the long run is vital to achieving optimal results in the long term endeavor.

What I just described to you is the gulf that is keeping you from connecting with Rodja on a total level, and I will assume not knowing Jiigzz as well as I do Rodja that his education has pointed him more in the direction I just described as well.
 
Tufts604

Tufts604

New member
Awards
0
i like what you are saying here, but i would add that too much can be a day to day thing not a week to week, if you feel good today and want to do 40 sets for arms or chest then why not?? and if you feel bad that day just do 12 or so..
I totally agree I allow myself to make those changes on the fly. I have not set myself in a routine for a long time.
I am aware I may benefit from one especially at times but I enjoy the freedom and find it keeps training from becoming a chore. Right now my goals are elsewhere so I am just enjoying training and the lifestyle.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
HIT4ME you are totally correct in that you can only improve as fast as you can recover, and that doing the minimum work for the results you can realistically create in a training microcyle is optimal. I just think you're selling the human body short on its ability to build work capacity, the amount of training that can still be done in a minimalist fashion to elicit results, and the benefits that active recovery can provide in allowing you to get back to training faster.

If you spend a little time training specifically to improve work capacity rather than specific size or strength, work capacity will improve and allow your body to better recover and therefore sustain more growth stimulus for greater gains the next time you cone around to high intensity. This is what eastern sports scientists learned and perfected 50 years ago. Shifting focus throughout the training year to achieve the best result, even if at times the short term goal runs tangent to the long term goal. If you train low volume and high intensity all the time, you cannot build yourself up to the work capacity it takes to even get through the warm up routine of an elite strength athlete.

Things like targeted low intensity blood flow training, joint centration, contrast showers, and MFR can drastically improve recovery times and allow you to give yourself more pounding on hard training sessions. This is similar to the principles in the paragraph above on a smaller scale, in that not every training session feeds the long term goal of strength and size in a direct manner, but yet in the long run is vital to achieving optimal results in the long term endeavor.

What I just described to you is the gulf that is keeping you from connecting with Rodja on a total level, and I will assume not knowing Jiigzz as well as I do Rodja that his education has pointed him more in the direction I just described as well.
Awesome post man! Completely agree
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
HIT4ME you are totally correct in that you can only improve as fast as you can recover, and that doing the minimum work for the results you can realistically create in a training microcyle is optimal. I just think you're selling the human body short on its ability to build work capacity, the amount of training that can still be done in a minimalist fashion to elicit results, and the benefits that active recovery can provide in allowing you to get back to training faster.

If you spend a little time training specifically to improve work capacity rather than specific size or strength, work capacity will improve and allow your body to better recover and therefore sustain more growth stimulus for greater gains the next time you cone around to high intensity. This is what eastern sports scientists learned and perfected 50 years ago. Shifting focus throughout the training year to achieve the best result, even if at times the short term goal runs tangent to the long term goal. If you train low volume and high intensity all the time, you cannot build yourself up to the work capacity it takes to even get through the warm up routine of an elite strength athlete.

Things like targeted low intensity blood flow training, joint centration, contrast showers, and MFR can drastically improve recovery times and allow you to give yourself more pounding on hard training sessions. This is similar to the principles in the paragraph above on a smaller scale, in that not every training session feeds the long term goal of strength and size in a direct manner, but yet in the long run is vital to achieving optimal results in the long term endeavor.

What I just described to you is the gulf that is keeping you from connecting with Rodja on a total level, and I will assume not knowing Jiigzz as well as I do Rodja that his education has pointed him more in the direction I just described as well.
Man, this is a really good post and I hesitate with responding because I'm not here to stir any pots, just to think and learn and Rodja and Jiigzz both have great amounts of knowledge, as do you.

At the risk of voiding everything I just said (I hope not), my first instinct when you say that you can train to improve work capacity and thus recovery is to agree with you. And I do to some degree. I think this is a relatively complex issue when you consider that many people are training for many different reasons/outcomes. This in itself actually varies what "overtraining" actually entails. If I am training for maximum muscle response, under recovery may not allow for that and I may be overtraining - but if I'm training for an actual sports application, other factors may determine what a successful outcome is, and thus I am being successful (and not overtraining) even though I'm not getting the maximum recovery of the muscles I'm training. I mean Larry Bird didn't shoot 10 free throws and call it a day because, "Boy those were intense".

However, increasing work capacity does not entail improving recovery time - unless you ignore the improvements in performance. In other words, yeah, if I can run 2 sprints today and be completely drained and winded, then train for a month and can run 10 sprints - then running 2 sprints won't be as taxing and I will recover much more quickly. But 2 sprints also won't be triggering any adaptation. Running those 2 sprints just won't be very taxing anymore because of increased performance. But if you follow this thinking, then I "kind of" agree with you because overall work capacity is improved and I get where you are coming from - but your recovery from intense exercise is actually not improved barely at all.

Why do I say this? Do I have a study to back it up? No. I have loads of anecdotal evidence that I'm sure few on here would refute and logic. Let's assume for a moment that you CAN improve recovery. The only way I can think that "improved recovery" would be defined is either that you become more efficient/faster at recovering, or you have a stronger response/adaptation in the same timeframe. If either of these is true, this would mean that the more you trained and increased work capacity, the faster you could recover. The faster you can recover, the faster you can stimulate muscle growth again. The faster you can do these two things, the more you can do them in a given timeframe, and the more improvements you can make.

So, how does this logic play in the real world? Who gains muscle faster? Someone who has never lifted a weight? Or someone who has been training for 10 years? I mean, the 10 year trainee should be able to recover much faster, since they have increased work capacity, and thus stimulate muscle gains more frequently, and thus gain more muscle in any given timeframe than the person who has never trained, right?

I think we all know this just isn't how it works. The person who has been training for 10 years gains much more slowly, given the same intensity of effort, or not at all given the same workload. If you can "improve recovery" this doesn't make sense. If recovery does not improve to any appreciable degree, then the slower gains make more sense - you are putting more of a tax on the system to achieve the same intensity, but have the same (or slightly improved but not dramatically improved) recovery abilities.

I don't have a study, but I would bet anyone $10 that there are studies out there comparing protein synthesis in top athletes who have been weight training for years vs. the protein synthesis of a new trainee or even an average person, and I bet that they are not dramatically different - despite the fact the larger person should have more protein turnover (more muscle is being replaced) in a given timeframe. This also fits with the observation that we don't gain faster as we improve, but more slowly. I have a feeling I may owe Jiigzz $10, so I'm waiting for that :)

Finally, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Jiigzz is "wrong" and I'm not trying to sell anyone's recovery ability short. I'm also not saying the typical person should only train every 15 day. I'm not even saying 1X per week is optimal. Nor 2X. What I am saying is that it is MORE COMMON that people over estimate their ability to recover, and don't understand intensity's role in the equation. Someone who can only train every 15 days would be on the extreme end of a genetic spectrum. Maybe others can train every day and get results - they are on the other end of the spectrum. Most people fall in between and the idea is to find where - which varies based on goals/life/etc.

And while I'm making the argument that ultimately, recovery does not improve - I need to be more specific because I am going to an extreme to provide the theory. You are probably right to a degree and it CAN be improved upon a little bit...I'm just saying it isn't like you're going to improve so much that you can go from training at 100% intensity 1X/week to training 2X/week.

I also think that Jiigzz has very complex training protocols that probably work very well - and he is so used to them that they seem obvious. For instance, for many people he probably trains 1 heavy day in the week, and then the second day has more volume/lighter weights. I have seen this in his posts - and he is modulating intensity and my theory doesn't really go against this, we pretty much agree. I don't think Jiigzz recommends anyone go 100% 2X per week for weeks on end. HIs routines are more well rounded than just "adapt as much as possible in one way" he is getting people to adapt in multiple ways, and this is a good thing. I really don't disagree with him on 95% of what he says and I hope he feels the same....

I really like Jiigzz's post above with all the links. As I have time I am working through them and learning. I appreciate that. My hope is that, in addition to pissing some people off, I may get them to see something slightly different or ask a question they didn't before. If I can, great. Other than that, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I can only hope that one day I learn and it all falls into place.
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
"...work capacity is improved and I get where you are coming from - but your recovery from intense exercise is actually not improved barely at all."

I stopped reading here because this is fundamentally 100% false. If you better your GPP, then your recovery will improved from both submax and max efforts. Your work capacity is a cylinder and training the liquid. The larger that cylinder, then the more the body can handle and recover. The intensity of training will represent larger influx of liquid in this scenario.

Let's play this out a bit more to see if someone can finally get through to you on this. An all out grinding 1RM is 100cc of liquid. If someone has a cylinder of 500cc, then you will be able to recover much faster than if you had 400cc.

Improving work capacity shaves off large chunks of time needed between sets. If you only need 10 mins between sets as opposed to 15 mins, then you cannot honestly tell me that you think this will have zero impact on recovery between sessions. Simply put: work capacity is everything when it comes to training.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
"...work capacity is improved and I get where you are coming from - but your recovery from intense exercise is actually not improved barely at all."

I stopped reading here because this is fundamentally 100% false. If you better your GPP, then your recovery will improved from both submax and max efforts. Your work capacity is a cylinder and training the liquid. The larger that cylinder, then the more the body can handle and recover. The intensity of training will represent larger influx of liquid in this scenario.

Let's play this out a bit more to see if someone can finally get through to you on this. An all out grinding 1RM is 100cc of liquid. If someone has a cylinder of 500cc, then you will be able to recover much faster than if you had 400cc.

Improving work capacity shaves off large chunks of time needed between sets. If you only need 10 mins between sets as opposed to 15 mins, then you cannot honestly tell me that you think this will have zero impact on recovery between sessions. Simply put: work capacity is everything when it comes to training.
I get what you're saying, but you should have kept reading.

So you are saying that the more you train, the better you recover - which the logical conclusion then, is that the longer someone trains, the faster they should be able to gain muscle? i.e. - someone who has been training for 10 years should be able to recover and adapt faster than someone who has never trained?
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
I get what you're saying, but you should have kept reading.

So you are saying that the more you train, the better you recover - which the logical conclusion then, is that the longer someone trains, the faster they should be able to gain muscle? i.e. - someone who has been training for 10 years should be able to recover and adapt faster than someone who has never trained?
It's hard to read your posts because you ramble on so much without a coherent pattern. I'm not saying that at all and nobody else is either. Here's the fundamental problem with your all of your posts: you view overtraining as a muscular issue when it's a CNS issue. Training experience does play a role in the recovery equation, but only a small part. Experience alone doesn't tell you their style, their GPP, their actual "experience" with training (knowing how to design and adjust), etc.

I highly, highly suggest you stop reading any and all western styles of training and read more Eastern Bloc literature. Also, realize that BB'ing is sooooo far away from the actual spectrum of overtraining. The only reason is spouted so often is Weider and their magazines.

One last thing: an overuse injury is also not a result of overtraining. If you strain a muscle because it's not getting enough rest, that's from underrecovering and not due to overtraining (and no they're not even remotely the same).
 
Tufts604

Tufts604

New member
Awards
0
Rodja I am not getting into this but I pose the same question to you I did to Jiigzz. Are you formally educated or just have a nerdy thirst for knowledge? I am only curious.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
It's hard to read your posts because you ramble on so much without a coherent pattern. I'm not saying that at all and nobody else is either. Here's the fundamental problem with your all of your posts: you view overtraining as a muscular issue when it's a CNS issue. Training experience does play a role in the recovery equation, but only a small part. Experience alone doesn't tell you their style, their GPP, their actual "experience" with training (knowing how to design and adjust), etc.

I highly, highly suggest you stop reading any and all western styles of training and read more Eastern Bloc literature. Also, realize that BB'ing is sooooo far away from the actual spectrum of overtraining. The only reason is spouted so often is Weider and their magazines.

One last thing: an overuse injury is also not a result of overtraining. If you strain a muscle because it's not getting enough rest, that's from underrecovering and not due to overtraining (and no they're not even remotely the same).
Oh well. We've all spent enough time on this.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Man, this is a really good post and I hesitate with responding because I'm not here to stir any pots, just to think and learn and Rodja and Jiigzz both have great amounts of knowledge, as do you.

At the risk of voiding everything I just said (I hope not), my first instinct when you say that you can train to improve work capacity and thus recovery is to agree with you. And I do to some degree. I think this is a relatively complex issue when you consider that many people are training for many different reasons/outcomes. This in itself actually varies what "overtraining" actually entails. If I am training for maximum muscle response, under recovery may not allow for that and I may be overtraining - but if I'm training for an actual sports application, other factors may determine what a successful outcome is, and thus I am being successful (and not overtraining) even though I'm not getting the maximum recovery of the muscles I'm training. I mean Larry Bird didn't shoot 10 free throws and call it a day because, "Boy those were intense".

However, increasing work capacity does not entail improving recovery time - unless you ignore the improvements in performance. In other words, yeah, if I can run 2 sprints today and be completely drained and winded, then train for a month and can run 10 sprints - then running 2 sprints won't be as taxing and I will recover much more quickly. But 2 sprints also won't be triggering any adaptation. Running those 2 sprints just won't be very taxing anymore because of increased performance. But if you follow this thinking, then I "kind of" agree with you because overall work capacity is improved and I get where you are coming from - but your recovery from intense exercise is actually not improved barely at all.

Why do I say this? Do I have a study to back it up? No. I have loads of anecdotal evidence that I'm sure few on here would refute and logic. Let's assume for a moment that you CAN improve recovery. The only way I can think that "improved recovery" would be defined is either that you become more efficient/faster at recovering, or you have a stronger response/adaptation in the same timeframe. If either of these is true, this would mean that the more you trained and increased work capacity, the faster you could recover. The faster you can recover, the faster you can stimulate muscle growth again. The faster you can do these two things, the more you can do them in a given timeframe, and the more improvements you can make.

So, how does this logic play in the real world? Who gains muscle faster? Someone who has never lifted a weight? Or someone who has been training for 10 years? I mean, the 10 year trainee should be able to recover much faster, since they have increased work capacity, and thus stimulate muscle gains more frequently, and thus gain more muscle in any given timeframe than the person who has never trained, right?

I think we all know this just isn't how it works. The person who has been training for 10 years gains much more slowly, given the same intensity of effort, or not at all given the same workload. If you can "improve recovery" this doesn't make sense. If recovery does not improve to any appreciable degree, then the slower gains make more sense - you are putting more of a tax on the system to achieve the same intensity, but have the same (or slightly improved but not dramatically improved) recovery abilities.

I don't have a study, but I would bet anyone $10 that there are studies out there comparing protein synthesis in top athletes who have been weight training for years vs. the protein synthesis of a new trainee or even an average person, and I bet that they are not dramatically different - despite the fact the larger person should have more protein turnover (more muscle is being replaced) in a given timeframe. This also fits with the observation that we don't gain faster as we improve, but more slowly. I have a feeling I may owe Jiigzz $10, so I'm waiting for that :)

Finally, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Jiigzz is "wrong" and I'm not trying to sell anyone's recovery ability short. I'm also not saying the typical person should only train every 15 day. I'm not even saying 1X per week is optimal. Nor 2X. What I am saying is that it is MORE COMMON that people over estimate their ability to recover, and don't understand intensity's role in the equation. Someone who can only train every 15 days would be on the extreme end of a genetic spectrum. Maybe others can train every day and get results - they are on the other end of the spectrum. Most people fall in between and the idea is to find where - which varies based on goals/life/etc.

And while I'm making the argument that ultimately, recovery does not improve - I need to be more specific because I am going to an extreme to provide the theory. You are probably right to a degree and it CAN be improved upon a little bit...I'm just saying it isn't like you're going to improve so much that you can go from training at 100% intensity 1X/week to training 2X/week.

I also think that Jiigzz has very complex training protocols that probably work very well - and he is so used to them that they seem obvious. For instance, for many people he probably trains 1 heavy day in the week, and then the second day has more volume/lighter weights. I have seen this in his posts - and he is modulating intensity and my theory doesn't really go against this, we pretty much agree. I don't think Jiigzz recommends anyone go 100% 2X per week for weeks on end. HIs routines are more well rounded than just "adapt as much as possible in one way" he is getting people to adapt in multiple ways, and this is a good thing. I really don't disagree with him on 95% of what he says and I hope he feels the same....

I really like Jiigzz's post above with all the links. As I have time I am working through them and learning. I appreciate that. My hope is that, in addition to pissing some people off, I may get them to see something slightly different or ask a question they didn't before. If I can, great. Other than that, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I can only hope that one day I learn and it all falls into place.
Work capacity and recovery go hand in hand to improve performance (and density) and be manipulate to produce different results. I'm actually very surprised that you would think that an Elite athlete and an untrained or even moderately trained person would share a near equal recovery time.

You can actually do tests on an open field that I guarantee will change your mind. One of them is known as a repeated sprint ability and it is designed specifically to test an athletes person to recover between bouts of intense exercise. Another is the Yo-Yo intermittent test. I'd highly recommend participating in a battery of tests against an athlete to see how much of a role recovery plays in optimal performance. Recovery can definitely be improved "beyond a little bit".

Its really hard to debate with someone who is so set on an incorrect fundamental because you are already set on something that was never true to begin with. Even with multitudes of evidence in favour of improved recovery, your personal belief seems to override these things. If you don't think recovery between bouts is an important component of performance, then try playing a sport where you must recover quickly in preparation for the next bout without training for it. Even athletes running at the same RPE or intensity as you for the same duration will be able to recover from that bout much quicker than you are (their adaptations allow for this).

I'm not so sure I can continue debating as you simply dismiss recovery without considering any evidence and your position is based solely on the fact you think otherwise. And that's not exactly a strong foundation for an argument lol

I personally train for two very specific yet interrelated goals, hence why I divide my routine to accommodate such. I wouldn't train all out for multiple goals as the molecular processes involved in optimizing each are often at odds, but I can train both within the same macro cycle.
 
bobsaget2191

bobsaget2191

Active member
Awards
0
so glad I just popped a bag of popcorn for this thread haha
 
jaces

jaces

Active member
Awards
0
"...work capacity is improved and I get where you are coming from - but your recovery from intense exercise is actually not improved barely at all."

I stopped reading here because this is fundamentally 100% false. If you better your GPP, then your recovery will improved from both submax and max efforts. Your work capacity is a cylinder and training the liquid. The larger that cylinder, then the more the body can handle and recover. The intensity of training will represent larger influx of liquid in this scenario.

Let's play this out a bit more to see if someone can finally get through to you on this. An all out grinding 1RM is 100cc of liquid. If someone has a cylinder of 500cc, then you will be able to recover much faster than if you had 400cc.

Improving work capacity shaves off large chunks of time needed between sets. If you only need 10 mins between sets as opposed to 15 mins, then you cannot honestly tell me that you think this will have zero impact on recovery between sessions. Simply put: work capacity is everything when it comes to training.
very nice way to explain it ..
 
digitalpimp

digitalpimp

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
It's definitely possible but I think most people confuse "overuse" injuries with overtraining. I agree that overtraining is related to the CNS
 
Shasow

Shasow

Banned
Awards
0
No, overtraining can be any part of the system, muscles, joints, CNS, etc. Geez why do we complicate things. Overuse, overtrain, overreach, overstretch, f#ck how about OVERCOMPLICATE.

Listen to your body and act accordingly.
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
Overreaching is done intentionally and is a very important element to use for progress, but nobody in their right mind would ever overtrain. Hate to beat the horse again, but knowing how to effectively gauge what it takes you to get to that point aka your work capacity varies and figuring out why there's been a variance is the puzzle we must solve between cycles.
 
digitalpimp

digitalpimp

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
No, overtraining can be any part of the system, muscles, joints, CNS, etc. Geez why do we complicate things. Overuse, overtrain, overreach, overstretch, f#ck how about OVERCOMPLICATE.

Listen to your body and act accordingly.
"overuse" is much more specific imo. Elbow pain from too much benching would be an example.
"overreaching" from workout out too frequently, too intensely, or too long a duration is a great way to elicit supercompensation.
 
KidIcarus

KidIcarus

New member
Awards
0
Overtraining is real. But, I think you have to do a lot of volume with high intensity and not give your body enough time to rest in order to truly overtrain. For example, in high school I ran cross country and I ran very high mileage every week and never took a break. By the end of the season, I was burnt out and injured. If I would have every now and then just taken a day or two off, or lifted weights or did some other cardio such as exercise bike for a couple days instead of running, the end of the season would have been much more pleasant. I've learned my lesson and now I change up intensities and try not to do repetitive work-outs. Gains actually come from recovery, not the work-out itself per se. So, I will work a muscle group out and try to rest it for a week. I know that some groups have overlap (example: shoulders, triceps, and chest), so I try to space them so they aren't all in a row during the week. I used to de-load by just not working out for 2-7 days. But, lately I just change up the routine, change the intensity and take Sundays off and I'm good.
 

gynopuff

Member
Awards
0
I am a sports and exercise science major at ucf. If you are natural it is def possibly to over train you will use up all your testosterone and wont give it a chance ti replenish. You need time off otherwise you will have low t.
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
You don't "use up" your testosterone and overtraining is far beyond just testosterone levels.
 

kisaj

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I think they'll cover that part in the sophomore year.
 
VWMeatHead

VWMeatHead

Active member
Awards
0
In my opinion the cns will become overtrained before the body, if enough rest and nutrient intake is present i don't feel the body would become overtrained but so many variables have to be taken into consideration so its possible.
This.

CNS before the body.

Faitgue, lack of motivation, etc.
 
BeastFitness

BeastFitness

Banned
Awards
0
I just feel like many people never TRULY overtrain. Is it BS? No. But its a lot harder to reach a truly overtrained physique than people think. Our bodies can handle more stress than many give credit for
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I just feel like many people never TRULY overtrain. Is it BS? No. But its a lot harder to reach a truly overtrained physique than people think. Our bodies can handle more stress than many give credit for
I agree with this, but actual intense training pushes the limits of this stress. If you are talking about the average person who thinks a casual walk is "exercise" then yeah, they can go for a long long while without worrying. If you're talking about someone pushing limits...it is pretty real that you will overtrain. Even people in this thread who claim most people don't overtrain will turn around and claim they've done it....or claim it is a good thing if you call it something other than overtraining.
 

MBZ

Member
Awards
0
While I don't think it is truly over training, I can definitely tell when my body needs a res. I've noticed that when I'm training really intense for too long, I get really bad insomnia and start stalking on all of my lifts as well as gains.

The only times this has happened is when I was training with high intensity and volume, while also playing sports and doing it all naturally. That leads me to believe that I was in fact over doing it.
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
I agree with this, but actual intense training pushes the limits of this stress. If you are talking about the average person who thinks a casual walk is "exercise" then yeah, they can go for a long long while without worrying. If you're talking about someone pushing limits...it is pretty real that you will overtrain. Even people in this thread who claim most people don't overtrain will turn around and claim they've done it....or claim it is a good thing if you call it something other than overtraining.
Do I have to show you the chart again with regards to overreaching, supercompensation, and overtraining? There's a huge difference despite your personal (and misguided) beliefs on the topic.
 
Parad0x

Parad0x

Active member
Awards
0
Most people never reach overtraining. It's like drinking; most people never drink quite enough to constitute an ER visit, just like most people never train so much that they reach overtraining. Most people gove themselves a break when the overbearing fatigue sets in. That's like puking after copious alcohol consumption. It's a low stage that won't really harm you. Now once you overtrain, pushing the limits further can lead to rhabdo which no one wants to experience and can be fatal. As stated previously, though, most never reach this point.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Do I have to show you the chart again with regards to overreaching, supercompensation, and overtraining? There's a huge difference despite your personal (and misguided) beliefs on the topic.
Oh no! Not the chart! lol
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
You wouldn't read it regardless since Mentzer or Jones didn't publish it.
Apparently you didn't read it - since Over reaching and over-training are part of the same arc on that graph, they even use the same color for the two. I don't know why it bothers you so much that I don't believe what you do? I'm not insulting you, what's with you getting so put out? I really don't see any benefit to this. The ONLY educational post from the other side was Jigzz's post, which I did read many of the references, and they support my "misguided beliefs".

Maybe I'm insane, out of touch with reality, and don't know my ass from my elbow. Oh well, I see what I see. I'm stupid. Take me to court.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Feels like ground hogs day.
I'm with you, I am thinking I just shouldn't respond to this thread anymore. No matter what I'm responding to, if I use the term overtraining I might as well be typing in symbols because it's a bad bad word.

In reality, the idea that you CAN'T overtrain is preposterous.
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
Apparently you didn't read it - since Over reaching and over-training are part of the same arc on that graph, they even use the same color for the two. I don't know why it bothers you so much that I don't believe what you do? I'm not insulting you, what's with you getting so put out? I really don't see any benefit to this. The ONLY educational post from the other side was Jigzz's post, which I did read many of the references, and they support my "misguided beliefs".

Maybe I'm insane, out of touch with reality, and don't know my ass from my elbow. Oh well, I see what I see. I'm stupid. Take me to court.
I'm extremely familiar with the overreaching, supercompensation, and overtraining paradigm. I use them and implement them nearly every single day. You can be as sardonic as you want, but you're clearly uneducated on the topic. That's the great thing about science: you can believe what you want, but the data doesn't lie. I can flip your point and easily say why is it so difficult to accept that you're wrong on the topic? There's no benefit to your nonsensical rants when you haven't the slightest clue about the balance of recovery, conditioning, intensity, and volume.

I'm with you, I am thinking I just shouldn't respond to this thread anymore. No matter what I'm responding to, if I use the term overtraining I might as well be typing in symbols because it's a bad bad word.

In reality, the idea that you CAN'T overtrain is preposterous.
And who said that you can't overtrain?
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I'm extremely familiar with the overreaching, supercompensation, and overtraining paradigm. I use them and implement them nearly every single day. You can be as sardonic as you want, but you're clearly uneducated on the topic. That's the great thing about science: you can believe what you want, but the data doesn't lie. I can flip your point and easily say why is it so difficult to accept that you're wrong on the topic? There's no benefit to your nonsensical rants when you haven't the slightest clue about the balance of recovery, conditioning, intensity, and volume.



And who said that you can't overtrain?
Man, data is NOT science anymore than a foot is a human body. And you have admitted that you ARE NOT familiar with over reaching and over training - you have been unable to define it at all. You have asked others to do so, and limit your contribution to telling them they are wrong but have yet to provide a definition at all. You are just here to say everyone else is wrong...maybe because they are younger than you or didn't get a bunch of letters after their name, etc.

You go further to admit previously that you don't even read the posts or comprehend them before you start arguing them. You claim it is because they are "rambling"...well, fine. Why argue with them then? You are arguing things you aren't even willing to take the time to understand...so why do that?

And then you say I won't read anything unless Mentzer wrote it, but you admit you don't read anything that doesn't fit your current thought process, because it is rambling and uneducated. I've read the studies posted, and they don't support your arguments.

I don't really care if you disagree with me, I look to you for knowledge in a lot of things and I have NOT reduced my argument to "you're clearly uneducated on the subject." You have a right to disagree with me. And I value the difference in opinion. This isn't a journey of one right way and I've never said that your way won't work or doesn't work. Actually, I've stated that we are a lot closer than you seem to realize.

And then you end with, "Who said you can't overtrain?"

Do you even know what you are arguing?

I am uneducated and wrong. I am OK with that. It only effects me and anyone who chooses to read and think about my posts. If you disagree, I value the disagreement because I am willing to learn, but I am analytical and don't believe things just because a study says this or that. Data has to be interpreted and is situational.

This is a path that requires flexibility. I am sure your way works. Mine does too...I don't know which is "better" because that is an over simplification .
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
BTW - if you'd read my "rants" you'd see that is my exact argument...there has to be a balance between volume, frequency and intensity.
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
Man, data is NOT science anymore than a foot is a human body. And you have admitted that you ARE NOT familiar with over reaching and over training - you have been unable to define it at all. You have asked others to do so, and limit your contribution to telling them they are wrong but have yet to provide a definition at all. You are just here to say everyone else is wrong...maybe because they are younger than you or didn't get a bunch of letters after their name, etc.

You go further to admit previously that you don't even read the posts or comprehend them before you start arguing them. You claim it is because they are "rambling"...well, fine. Why argue with them then? You are arguing things you aren't even willing to take the time to understand...so why do that?

And then you say I won't read anything unless Mentzer wrote it, but you admit you don't read anything that doesn't fit your current thought process, because it is rambling and uneducated. I've read the studies posted, and they don't support your arguments.

I don't really care if you disagree with me, I look to you for knowledge in a lot of things and I have NOT reduced my argument to "you're clearly uneducated on the subject." You have a right to disagree with me. And I value the difference in opinion. This isn't a journey of one right way and I've never said that your way won't work or doesn't work. Actually, I've stated that we are a lot closer than you seem to realize.

And then you end with, "Who said you can't overtrain?"

Do you even know what you are arguing?

I am uneducated and wrong. I am OK with that. It only effects me and anyone who chooses to read and think about my posts. If you disagree, I value the disagreement because I am willing to learn, but I am analytical and don't believe things just because a study says this or that. Data has to be interpreted and is situational.

This is a path that requires flexibility. I am sure your way works. Mine does too...I don't know which is "better" because that is an over simplification .
You're clearly thinking of someone else as I am very familiar with overreaching, supercompensation, and overtraining and I never said I don't read anything that doesn't fit my current process. You **** on data that is reviewed by people that actually study and immerse themselves in the field then what the hell is the basis for your opinions? Another dudes's opinion?

I've said multiple times that it is VERY possible to overtrain. However, for the average gym rat that lifts 4-6 hours per week, it's very unlikely to happen barring extraneous circumstances. When I said that I personally experienced overtraining was when I was fighting professionally, which was about a 30-40 hour per week training load.

Overreaching is a phase where both volume, frequency, and/or intensity are increased to an unsustained level. This is individualized based on a persons GPP and conditioning, which you think has nothing to with recovery for some reason. When this phase is continued for an indefinite period of time, that is when overtraining is likely to occur. How long this takes, again, varies on a persons conditioning. However, when the overreaching microcycle is of the appropriate length and followed by a deload of also appropriate length, supercompensation occurs. This can be demonstrated by an increase in LBM or, more likely, this is when a strength athlete is likely to peak.

Anything else you would like me to cover?
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
You're clearly thinking of someone else as I am very familiar with overreaching, supercompensation, and overtraining and I never said I don't read anything that doesn't fit my current process. You **** on data that is reviewed by people that actually study and immerse themselves in the field then what the hell is the basis for your opinions? Another dudes's opinion?

I've said multiple times that it is VERY possible to overtrain. However, for the average gym rat that lifts 4-6 hours per week, it's very unlikely to happen barring extraneous circumstances. When I said that I personally experienced overtraining was when I was fighting professionally, which was about a 30-40 hour per week training load.

Overreaching is a phase where both volume, frequency, and/or intensity are increased to an unsustained level. This is individualized based on a persons GPP and conditioning, which you think has nothing to with recovery for some reason. When this phase is continued for an indefinite period of time, that is when overtraining is likely to occur. How long this takes, again, varies on a persons conditioning. However, when the overreaching microcycle is of the appropriate length and followed by a deload of also appropriate length, supercompensation occurs. This can be demonstrated by an increase in LBM or, more likely, this is when a strength athlete is likely to peak.

Anything else you would like me to cover?
First off - I haven't **** on any data. The basis of my opinion is my own experience, critical thinking, analysis of what studies I have seen, and reading others' analysis and experiences. What data have I **** on?

Further, you need to read what I've written more carefully and without some "Mentzer is an idiot, so anyone who doesn't think so must also be an idiot" -bias. You pretty much summarized, very nicely, most of my arguments in your last post.

Our disagreements come in relatively minor distinctions - mostly over degree. And it took me a while to work out the "your recovery abilities don't improve just because you can do more" think in my head too....it's just something to ponder. Maybe they do, I think not though.

I think the bottom line is, we probably have more we agree upon than disagree upon here and the little twists are what makes it interesting...but we're focused too much on whether or not 1 set or 2 sets is optimal, etc.
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
First off - I haven't **** on any data. The basis of my opinion is my own experience, critical thinking, analysis of what studies I have seen, and reading others' analysis and experiences. What data have I **** on?

Further, you need to read what I've written more carefully and without some "Mentzer is an idiot, so anyone who doesn't think so must also be an idiot" -bias. You pretty much summarized, very nicely, most of my arguments in your last post.

Our disagreements come in relatively minor distinctions - mostly over degree. And it took me a while to work out the "your recovery abilities don't improve just because you can do more" think in my head too....it's just something to ponder. Maybe they do, I think not though.

I think the bottom line is, we probably have more we agree upon than disagree upon here and the little twists are what makes it interesting...but we're focused too much on whether or not 1 set or 2 sets is optimal, etc.
You just said that data is not science. Ummmm....then what the hell is it? I've never even discussed what the optimal number of sets because it's relative to, here we go again, a persons conditioning and ability to recover. I guess you missed my cylinder and volume analogy?
Where's our agreement as well? My point is you pretty much have to have the training volume of a professional athlete or a serious strength athlete before overtraining becomes an issue not an average gym goer.
Furthermore, it doesn't take into account what the intensity of said set is and how many reps per set. Two doubles done at 90% is very different than three doubles at 80%.
Mentzer is dead wrong and it's his rhetoric of overtraining, which is a CNS issue and not a muscular issue, that has led so many people to scale back on their training. To my knowledge, Mentzer never even establishes a hierarchy of fatigue caused by certain lifts (e.g. deadlifts versus leg extensions) or the importance of technique for said lifts. Think about the efficiency that a highly skilled boxer throws a punch. You don't see wasted energy because their technique is so good contrary to a neophyte that expends tons of energy each punch. Lifting is a skill just like throwing a punch yet where's the emphasis on technique?
People love and talk about their admiration for the classic era of BB'ers, but adopt none of their methods. What sense does that make? The body can handle a hell of a lot more than 99% of the training population thinks and it becomes he blind leading the blind. It's like nobody wants to actually sit in a gym and train their asses off for 2-3 hours anymore. When you say that to people, the first thing out of their mouth is overtraining without having a clue about that persons recovery abilities or what their template even entails.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
You just said that data is not science. Ummmm....then what the hell is it? I've never even discussed what the optimal number of sets because it's relative to, here we go again, a persons conditioning and ability to recover. I guess you missed my cylinder and volume analogy?
Furthermore, it doesn't take into account what the intensity of said set is and how many reps per set. Two doubles done at 90% is very different than three doubles at 80%.
Mentzer is dead wrong and it's his rhetoric of overtraining, which is a CNS issue and not a muscular issue, that has led so many people to scale back on their training. People love and talk about their admiration for the classic era of BB'ers, but adopt none of their methods. What sense does that make? The body can handle a hell of a lot more than 99% of the training population thinks and it becomes he blind leading the blind. It's like nobody wants to actually sit in a gym and train their asses off for 2-3 hours anymore. When you say that to people, the first thing out of their mouth is overtraining without having a clue about that persons recovery abilities or what their template even entails.
Data is NOT science - not a knock on either. Data is one of the tools of science. It is a part of science, but you need proper analysis and application also.

My point about the optimal number of sets is just to point out it's a matter of degree for us - can 1 set lead to over training? Yes, if you are doing high intensity and using enough frequency to do so. It's back to that balance you spoke of.

No one ever said over training was a muscular issue. I agree, you are far more likely to over train the CNS. Soreness, etc, - all that doesn't matter so much. Other factors are more important, the CNS being the big thing that everyone points to.

Mentzer also treated overtraining as much more of a CNS issue - although he didn't spell it out as such. It's like Mentzers ideas were adopted by someone else and they called it "CNS" and that caught on....his ideas underly CNS overtraining theories.

And, again, we agree - most people are not willing to work hard enough to over train. Many people on this board are, though, I would bet. Like you said, doubles at 90% vs. 80% become very different - intensity makes a big difference. Mentzer pushed intensity to its limits, he viewed muscular failure as not just eccentric failure, but as static and negative failure too. This level of intensity - where you can no longer even control a weights decent (within safety limits) - really impacts how long you can go at it. Most people would rather half-ass 5 sets than do 1 set in such a fashion.

Mentzer believed that the intensity was the best way to go because it removed doubt from whether or not you stimulated muscle growth, as reliably as could be expected. Even he said maybe 80% intensity or 90% would do it - but you never really knew when you were at those intensities. The only reliable intensities are 0% and 100% - and at 100% you know you've done all you could. His high intensity methods were the reason for his reduction in frequency and volume.

His point was also that, everyone has a different tolerance for exercise - and if you start with 5 sets and it doesn't work, where do you go? Is it not working because you haven't done enough? Or is it not working because you haven't recovered? His application was to start at the point where you were at 100% intensity and could do no less volume or frequency, and then at least you know you can increase from there.

You and I are like, 98% on the same page. I think you view HIT and Mentzer as being a lazy way and that isn't true at all. That would be like me saying volume lifters aren't using enough intensity. It's the balance that makes it work. And Mentzer's ideas actually lend themselves to both strategies if applied differently. The guy wasn't flawless though, and he applied them only one way, no flexibility.

Oh - and the issue with your cylinder and volume analogy - I get it and it is good - but it only deals with work capacity, not with recovery. How fast can you drain all the fluid from the cylinder after you fill it - that is recovery. And if the drain plug isn't any bigger, it only means that a bigger cylinder takes longer to recover from because you have to drain more fluid at the same rate. It also means that you can require large amounts of recovery time without sufficiently filling the cylinder to trigger a response.

The question is, does our "drain plug" get bigger as our cylinder gets bigger? I don't know that it does to any appreciable degree - protein synthesis isn't all that much higher, lactic acid removal, etc. - these things improve, but not to the same degree that the cylinder gets larger. Those are my thoughts anyway - is there evidence of something different? I ask that sincerely.
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
Data is NOT science - not a knock on either. Data is one of the tools of science. It is a part of science, but you need proper analysis and application also.

My point about the optimal number of sets is just to point out it's a matter of degree for us - can 1 set lead to over training? Yes, if you are doing high intensity and using enough frequency to do so. It's back to that balance you spoke of.

No one ever said over training was a muscular issue. I agree, you are far more likely to over train the CNS. Soreness, etc, - all that doesn't matter so much. Other factors are more important, the CNS being the big thing that everyone points to.

Mentzer also treated overtraining as much more of a CNS issue - although he didn't spell it out as such. It's like Mentzers ideas were adopted by someone else and they called it "CNS" and that caught on....his ideas underly CNS overtraining theories.

And, again, we agree - most people are not willing to work hard enough to over train. Many people on this board are, though, I would bet. Like you said, doubles at 90% vs. 80% become very different - intensity makes a big difference. Mentzer pushed intensity to its limits, he viewed muscular failure as not just eccentric failure, but as static and negative failure too. This level of intensity - where you can no longer even control a weights decent (within safety limits) - really impacts how long you can go at it. Most people would rather half-ass 5 sets than do 1 set in such a fashion.

Mentzer believed that the intensity was the best way to go because it removed doubt from whether or not you stimulated muscle growth, as reliably as could be expected. Even he said maybe 80% intensity or 90% would do it - but you never really knew when you were at those intensities. The only reliable intensities are 0% and 100% - and at 100% you know you've done all you could. His high intensity methods were the reason for his reduction in frequency and volume.

His point was also that, everyone has a different tolerance for exercise - and if you start with 5 sets and it doesn't work, where do you go? Is it not working because you haven't done enough? Or is it not working because you haven't recovered? His application was to start at the point where you were at 100% intensity and could do no less volume or frequency, and then at least you know you can increase from there.

You and I are like, 98% on the same page. I think you view HIT and Mentzer as being a lazy way and that isn't true at all. That would be like me saying volume lifters aren't using enough intensity. It's the balance that makes it work. And Mentzer's ideas actually lend themselves to both strategies if applied differently. The guy wasn't flawless though, and he applied them only one way, no flexibility.

Oh - and the issue with your cylinder and volume analogy - I get it and it is good - but it only deals with work capacity, not with recovery. How fast can you drain all the fluid from the cylinder after you fill it - that is recovery. And if the drain plug isn't any bigger, it only means that a bigger cylinder takes longer to recover from because you have to drain more fluid at the same rate. It also means that you can require large amounts of recovery time without sufficiently filling the cylinder to trigger a response.

The question is, does our "drain plug" get bigger as our cylinder gets bigger? I don't know that it does to any appreciable degree - protein synthesis isn't all that much higher, lactic acid removal, etc. - these things improve, but not to the same degree that the cylinder gets larger. Those are my thoughts anyway - is there evidence of something different? I ask that sincerely.
Data is the result of science. You should go back to elementary science to learn the scientific method again. Overtraining came from eastern Bloc training and none of it applies to Mentzer's ideas. Do you even know who Prilepin, Issurin, and Bompa are?

Mentzer's idea on a set to failure and beyond becomes a muscular issue and not a CNS issue. You can tell you're not familiar with the CNS and its role in recovery and efficiency. This method taxes the muscles and connective tissue far before CNS fatigue becomes an issue unless you are horribly out of shape. Hmmm....that sounds like work capacity, doesn't it?

You point to X number of sets. Sets of what lift? Is their technique optimal? What's their level of conditioning? All these things are not accounted for in your philosophy.

I don't get how work capacity seems to fly over your head as it is completely correlated with recovery. This likely comes from your lack of formal education and understanding of the strength curve. You're even confused about the starting point; the cylinder begins at max capacity and not empty and, yes, the size of the "plug" does also increase. This is why it takes a longer deload period for the more advanced athlete to peak compared to a novice athlete. They know how to tax their CNS efficiently during the overreaching periods and start to taper volume as much as a month out from a competition. Conversely, a novice strength athlete may only need 5-7 days because they're not as efficient and need the skill practice.

Recovery on a small scale comes from improved enzymatic efficient at dissipating waste products intra-set. Lactic acid plays no role whatsoever as its dissipated within minutes (I really hope you don't think soreness is a result of lactic acid). On a large scale, it is the ability to replenish glycogen stores, bring the HR close resting levels, and keep nitrogen retention on the positive side.

You really, really, really need to stop looking at this as a BB'ing concept as it isn't. It's a strength concept.
 
jaces

jaces

Active member
Awards
0
how can data be the result of science??you use data to prove science and to accept or decline a theory or hypothesis.. data is just random numbers if not used correctly.. and i believe that if a study is not dubbel blind than it is a waste of time
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
how can data be the result of science??you use data to prove science and to accept or decline a theory or hypothesis.. data is just random numbers if not used correctly.. and i believe that if a study is not dubbel blind than it is a waste of time
Data is collected as the result of the implementation of the scientific method. Whether or not the data accepts or rejects the null hypothesis depends on said hypothesis. How exactly do you have a DOUBLE blind study in the field of strength training? It's not a nutrition protocol or a supplement/drug study.
 
BeastFitness

BeastFitness

Banned
Awards
0
Does anyone feel as if they've truly overtrained before?
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
Does anyone feel as if they've truly overtrained before?
Yes, when I was fighting professionally. Heavy training volume+cutting weight got me there, but it took about 8 weeks before it really happened.
 

Top