Anyone Believe in Cross-Training?

Training Powerlifting
61

[quote]KingMike wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
KingMike wrote:
performance training dosent get you a good physique?

One athlete: Vernon Gholston.

6’4 260lbs isn’t a midget either.

One athlete, one genetic freak. His arm size probably increased in a 1:1 ratio with his age during his teens.

Do you know Phil Heath? Another black guy with incredible genetics for building muscle. He’s now a high profile bodybuilder but he started out playing other sports. And boy, did he ever grow once he got on that bodybuilding training regimen.

I’m sure the same thing would happen to your guy. He could be another Paul Dillet in the making. Someone should give him some tren, if they haven’t already.

Besides, how do you know how that guy trains? Football players (and most athletes, really) are notorious for “sloppy training”, in that they combine different training methodologies and basically just throw heavy shit around. He could very well be using bodybuilding principles. He’s so genetically gifted that it probably wouldn’t have a detrimental impact on his performance.

Your excuse for everything is that its being a genetic freak. I doubt ohio state has a “sloppy” lifting program. Give it up. Vernon started playing football in college. He never even lifted in high school. A Clean diet and good training will get you a good physique. Not everyone who is big is a genetic freak.
[/quote]

Your mistake is trying to apply absolute standards to a relative field.

Your guy is certainly huge and jacked by absolute standards, but may not be so by relative standards. The point being, you have no way of knowing whether his current physique is the best that it could possibly be. You have no way of knowing that he would not double in size if he started training like Ronnie Coleman. If he stepped on the Olympia stage, whatever flaws he has in his physique would become apparent.

By the way, lots of athletes in pro sports are good because of their genetics rather than their training. So when I point that out, it’s not a cop-out or an excuse. It’s the simple truth. Get used to it. Bodybuilding is the only sport where “normal looking” people turn into complete monsters.

That is not to say that pro BB’ing doesn’t have its share of natural-born freaks, because it does.

I don’t doubt it for a second. I have seen videos of pro athletes training and the best description of it is, “throwin’ heavy shit around” with very little regard for form and technique. Half squatting, bouncing the bar off your chest on the bench, and pulling with a rounded back are the rule, not the exception. Big, strong guys usually don’t care about anything besides moving the weight.

[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
This really all just sounds like an excuse for why the OP is weak and/or afraid to get under some heavy weight.[/quote]

Lifting heavy isn’t my goal, but if it was, that’s precisely what I would do. If I was weak and afraid to lift heavy and/or intensely, don’t you think I would be recommending cross-training routines, instead of specialization? Cross-training is precisely for people who are weak and afraid to advance in any given area. You have your assessment backwards.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
If you are training for a sport, you certainly need to do sports-specific training. But throwing in some additional cross-training workouts CAN help boost fitness and can certainly help stave off injury, especially in a high-impact sport like track and field.[/quote]

Rehab/Prehab/Mobility is not “cross-training” (unless you are learning wacky yoga poses just for the hell of it). It is an adjunct to the main training program. I have nothing against it whatsoever, and there is no reason why you can’t dedicate your training 100% to one area and still include this type of work.

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Jesus believed in cross training[/quote]

He was skinny. Most people on this site wouldn’t take training advice from him.

62

What do you mean by crosstraining? Am I crosstraining? I like plyos, sprints, olympic lift variations for speed and power. I use heavier compounds lift for relative strength training. And I do some metabolic/cardio conditioning. Is that what you mean by “crosstraining?”

63

Yeah, your routine sounds pretty typical of guys who say they, “don’t want to bulk up, just get lean, strong, and have good endurance”. This is pretty much the standard set of training goals that I encounter for males over 35.

Heavy compounds build absolute strength, not relative strength. If you want relative strength you should be doing functional bodyweight movements.

The end result of your training is that you are going to become fairly proficient at the 3-5 lifts you do most frequently.

However, nobody who sees you on the street will be able to tell that you lift heavy weights on a regular basis. A 1 arm DB snatch might look impressive but the guy who does it still doesn’t look like he lifts weights.

Older guys are always fascinated by speed and power. I don’t get it: What’s the rush? Where are you trying to get to, lol? There is no reason to do speed training unless you’re an athlete.

You will have “core strength” but that does not guarantee core hypertrophy. A sixpack may continue to elude you unless you get very strict with your diet and do more isolation ab work. I had a fifty-something guy come in who loved all the functional stuff, and while he had great relative strength and core strength, he was frustrated by the fact that wasn’t getting the muscle definition he expected. Time to hit up the machines.

You may be fitter than the average person, and certainly more so than people your age, but you are still short-changing yourself in the physique department, imo.

I understand the psychology, though. Older guys are no longer trying to impress everybody with their physique. They just want to maintain their fitness level. I do wish that people would set their goals higher.

64

This is indicative of a mentality which constructs absolute truths out of half-understood facts. And its a reason why backseat drivers really do suck at giving advice. BECAUSE IF YOU ACTUALLY DID WALK THE WALK, YOU’D KNOW THIS WAS BUNK.

Example: people develop really impressive, and I mean really impressive physiques, just training as olympic lifters. They may not even be good enough to get to the olympics, but they still have physiques which 99% of gym-goers would kill for.

What kind of strength sports orientated athletes did you have in mind, whose physiques looked weak?

You were not talking about training someone who is about to embark on a 10 year bodybuilding career. Thats not what this thread was about (err, “strength sports” forum???). Your assertion was that, after an initial “beginner period”, no real progress can be made without intense specialisation.

You sum this up with this gem:
“Speed and [relative] strength are not opposing qualities. Performance and appearance are.”

You’re jumping trains here. If you want to become the best in the world, (or top 10, or top 100), at anything, then you need to specialise. No-one here was arguing that you can become Mr. Olympia by training 100% olympic lifts. Or that you can become the successor to Rezzazedeh (olympic super heavyweight legend!) by just training like Arnold.

Again, thats not what this thread was about. Its really all about that aforementioned gem of yours, quoted above. That performances and appearance are opposing qualities.

Present any biological system with a physical challenge, that requires greater performance, across any modality (absolute strength, explosive strength, strength endurance, anerobic conditioning, aerobic conditioning), and given sufficient resources for recovery (rest and nutrition), that biological system will GROW to meet the challenge.

In the end, thats it. Whatever you want to be, bigger, faster, stronger, greater endurance, OR A GOOD MEASURE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE.

65

So let me get this straight. The only way to get bigger is to do isolation exercises, and anyone who got big by doing anything else was a genetic freak, and its completly impossible to do it any other way then to hit each muscle individually.

Do you have pictures of yourself so we can see how well your methods work?

66

ok to the op, u think cross training is a waste of time? iam a rower did that routine for 6 weeks it increased my performance alot took me from 13% bf to 11% and i gained 5kg in the process.

and if u think that cross training is a pat on the back here’s what i did.

monday: power cleans , weighed dips , weighed pullups done in circuit fashion for 15 reps on each excercise then for 12 reps then for nine.

wednesday: 225 deads , handstand pushup or as close to vertical as u can. superset them 21 reps , then 15 reps then 9 reps.

friday: did mondays workout.

try it.

67

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Yeah, your routine sounds pretty typical of guys who say they, “don’t want to bulk up, just get lean, strong, and have good endurance”. This is pretty much the standard set of training goals that I encounter for males over 35.

Heavy compounds build absolute strength, not relative strength. If you want relative strength you should be doing functional bodyweight movements.

The end result of your training is that you are going to become fairly proficient at the 3-5 lifts you do most frequently.

However, nobody who sees you on the street will be able to tell that you lift heavy weights on a regular basis. A 1 arm DB snatch might look impressive but the guy who does it still doesn’t look like he lifts weights.

Older guys are always fascinated by speed and power. I don’t get it: What’s the rush? Where are you trying to get to, lol? There is no reason to do speed training unless you’re an athlete.

You will have “core strength” but that does not guarantee core hypertrophy. A sixpack may continue to elude you unless you get very strict with your diet and do more isolation ab work. I had a fifty-something guy come in who loved all the functional stuff, and while he had great relative strength and core strength, he was frustrated by the fact that wasn’t getting the muscle definition he expected. Time to hit up the machines.

You may be fitter than the average person, and certainly more so than people your age, but you are still short-changing yourself in the physique department, imo.

I understand the psychology, though. Older guys are no longer trying to impress everybody with their physique. They just want to maintain their fitness level. I do wish that people would set their goals higher.[/quote]

Now you’re definitely trolling.

68

Is this thread still going? The guy doesn’t even understand the words he’s using. Heavy compound movements “won’t build muscle,” but they “increase absolute strength, not relative strength.” I thought if they didn’t build muscle, but improve absolute strength, that by definition means they improve relative strength? Or DO they build muscle, which is the only way they’d improve absolute strength but not relative strength. Either way he’s wrong.

He may be right about getting stronger and aesthetics being competing goals, though. I mean, getting significantly stronger requires building muscle, and looking good requires building musc…hold on.

Let’s isolate ourselves from this guy, because I’m exhausted.

69

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Let’s isolate ourselves from this guy, because I’m exhausted.

[/quote]

LMFAO

The guy’s theory has so many holes and there are so many examples, disproving his rantings, that it’s pointless to continue this thread, unless for its entertainment value.

…Speed and [relative] strength are not opposing qualities. Performance and appearance are… Yea, righttt…

70

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Is this thread still going? The guy doesn’t even understand the words he’s using. Heavy compound movements “won’t build muscle,” but they “increase absolute strength, not relative strength.” I thought if they didn’t build muscle, but improve absolute strength, that by definition means they improve relative strength? Or DO they build muscle, which is the only way they’d improve absolute strength but not relative strength. Either way he’s wrong.

He may be right about getting stronger and aesthetics being competing goals, though. I mean, getting significantly stronger requires building muscle, and looking good requires building musc…hold on.

Let’s isolate ourselves from this guy, because I’m exhausted.

[/quote]

LOL, remember low reps only build strength because they only strengthen the bones.

You’re right, don’t feed the trolls.

71

Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig just enjoys it.

72

All training has the potential to be functional. The key thing here is to make sure it doesn’t interfere with skill/practice of sport or put the athlete into a state of overtraining(which is why programs are made for in season and offseason lifting).

And to say " No one should do speed training unless your an athlete" is hogwash. If I wanted to improve my 40 time, get faster at sprints,etc., its my decision regardless if I play sports or not. Same thing if someone wanted to go for more hypertrophy, its their goal that shouldn’t be dissuaded against.

73

This is the STRENGTH SPORTS forum.

Why are you babbling on about about hypertrophy? Take your act to the bodybuilding boards.

74

[quote]Defekt wrote:
So let me get this straight. The only way to get bigger is to do isolation exercises, and anyone who got big by doing anything else was a genetic freak, and its completly impossible to do it any other way then to hit each muscle individually.

Do you have pictures of yourself so we can see how well your methods work?[/quote]

The only way to stimulate hypertrophy is through isolation and exhaustion. Machine training is, by far, the most effective way to accomplish this, but there is no reason why it can’t be done with any other training method. It will simply take much, much longer.

This is my physique.

[quote]
Example: people develop really impressive, and I mean really impressive physiques, just training as olympic lifters. They may not even be good enough to get to the olympics, but they still have physiques which 99% of gym-goers would kill for.

What kind of strength sports orientated athletes did you have in mind, whose physiques looked weak?[/quote]

Again, you have to separate relative standards from absolute standards. By absolute standards, anyone who lifts weights for 20 years is going to look a hell of a lot better than the average, non-training individual.

By relative standards, a person who does bodybuilding for 20 years is going to be a hell of a lot more muscular and defined than a person who did only weight lifting.

You obviously need some standard of comparison. You can’t just say, “these guys do oly lifting and they are muscular”. “Muscular”? Compared to what - or rather, who? Probably not so muscular compared to Kevin Levrone or Dennis Wolf.

No, you need to specialize to improve, period. It makes no difference if the improvement is from average coach potato to slightly fit gym goer, or top-20 athlete to top 5 athlete. In both cases, you have a starting point and an end point, and the most direct path between them is always going to be a straight line. That line will ALWAYS be represented by specialization training.

People don’t have the genetics to become Ronnie Coleman, but that doesn’t mean they should specialize any less than he does if they want to reach their PERSONAL (i.e. relative) “best”.

Dyskee, I did things like that once upon a time. I did weighted dips, pullups, Back Squats, Zercher Squats, 20-rep DB Squats, and deads. The result was predictable: I got stronger in each of the lifts that I trained on a regular basis.

What DIDN’T happen was that I put on any muscle or changed my physique in any noticeable way. Indeed, I looked weaker than I do now, even though I lifted much heavier then. I also beat the hell out of my joints and connective tissues, despite using textbook form on everything.

I’ll never go back to that method of training. I don’t give a shit how much I bench or squat. I care about looking like an Olympian (greek god, not IFFB bodybuilder) when I walk around the gym during a workout.

First of all, strength is always going to be activity specific. There is absolutely no universal measure of strength, no way to measure it across the board. Therefore, getting stronger (being able to lift more weight) is going to be contigent on improving your lifting technique and leverage, first and foremost.

Those two factors probably account for 80% of strength gains. The remaining 20% is contractile hypertrophy, which comes at a turtle’s pace.

You can get equally strong by adding fat or adding muscle. Adding fat is a MUCH faster process than adding real, contractile muscle fiber. If you think I’m wrong, then how come PLers are always talking about “getting their bloat on” before a lift?

Because fat makes you strong. The majority of strength athletes add FAT, not MUSCLE, when they go up in weight.

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig just enjoys it.[/quote]

Not true, the pig gets mad. I just read this quote somewhere.

[quote]B3 wrote:

This is the STRENGTH SPORTS forum.

Why are you babbling on about about hypertrophy? Take your act to the bodybuilding boards.[/quote]

Because this thread is about programming, not hypertrophy, and it belongs here in Strength Sports.

75

In bodybuilding, there are numerous “before and after” photos which showcase the incredible physique transformations that people undergo with this type of training. You can find them in equal numbers among drug-using pro’s and natural amateurs.

Now, show me a comparable transformation among ANY other type of athlete, and then I’ll concede that other forms of training can be equally effective as bodybuilding in eliticing body recomposition.

It’s not enough to see how a person looks now. The real information is in knowing how they looked before.

76

Nominal prospect,

Dude, why are you espousing bodybuilding methods on the STRENGTH SPORTS forum?

It’s like me going to the bodybuilding board and arguing with everyone about how sprint training is superior to bodybuilding for improving your 40 time. It’s inane.

We get it. Bodybuilding is best for body composition.

77

Fat makes you strong?

You are nuttier than a fruitcake.

78

[quote]B3 wrote:
Nominal prospect,

Dude, why are you espousing bodybuilding methods on the STRENGTH SPORTS forum?[/quote]

I am not espousing “bodybuilding methods” across the board.

I am espousing bodybuilding methods for physique change and strength methods for athletes.

The point is to choose the training system which most directly aligns with your goals and your activities.

That’s how this discussion started. It degraded into an argument about hypertrophy after I mentioned that the average non-athlete is better off training for appearance than performance. Feel free to read the thread.

[quote]B3 wrote:
We get it. Bodybuilding is best for body composition. [/quote]

Oh, how I wish that everyone “got” that. Sadly, many people still don’t, and more than a few are high profile coaches and trainers.

[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
Fat makes you strong?

You are nuttier than a fruitcake.[/quote]

And you must have never seen, heard, or read anything about powerlifting in order to NOT recognize the overwhelming validity of the statement I made.

Fat makes you “strong” (i.e. able to lift more) because it improves leverage and decreases ROM, period. It does nothing to augment your force production capability. But it doesn’t have to. You can lift a heavier weight by moving it for a shorter distance, rather than increasing your contractile strength through muscular hypertrophy.

The bottom line is that gaining “mass” adds strength and fat is very much a part of mass, and a hell of a lot easier to add than genuine contractile tissue.

79

Nominal,

Thanks for clarifying. You make more sense now- not that I agree.

I believe competitive athletes are better off concentrating on performance- get stronger,faster,more flexible, explosive, quicker,etc. Reactive strength is crucial for ballistic sports.

Bodybuilding methods( like isolation, high rep to failure, the pump) aren’t the best ways to build an athlete. I’d rather have my athletes OLY and powerlifting than bodybuilding. I’d rather them push cars, drag sleds,and sprint hills than do isolation bodybuilding movements.

That being said the weekend warrior or aging athlete may be better off focusing on bodybuilding because we lose muscle mass as we age. At some point/age we peak- and it becomes a game of muscle preservation.

Maybe there is a place for both methods.

80

So would I, B3. I would never put a competitive athlete on a bodybuilding routine.

I understand better than most trainers that performance and appearance exist at opposite ends of the spectrum.

There is a very popular gimmick in the fitness industry which is marketed as, “lose weight/get toned/stronger while doing some form of creative training”.

It’s usually a load of BS involving circuits, bosu balls, ropes and bands (not the powerlifting type), aerobic steps, and what-not.

See, plain old weight training, whether it’s strength training or bodybuilding, just isn’t good enough for the clueless masses. It’s not fun. They want to do martial arts, or wrestling, or stability ball training, or specialized athletic drills, because those things are “fun”.

Bodybuilders want to break down the body into individual muscle groups and train each one separately from the rest.

Athletes need to think in terms of movements and use the entire body as a functional unit.

The training for each is about as different as you can get. And so will be the results.

The non-martial arts guys fooling around in their “kickboxing fitness” classes needn’t worry about which types of results they are going to obtain, because they’re not going to be getting any in the first place.