CW's Concept & Rep Acclimation?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
1

That is my premise. Seems to me that this popular and oft-quoted “rule” should be negated by MRT variants. As long as you are working to accelerate the load, the band of functional percent maxs broadens greatly. Reps will be all over the place in some instances

We’ve been told that advanced bbs need to focus on 80%+ intensity ranges (70-90% overall). We’ve been told that advanced bbs should only exceed 10 reps rarely. All this was beginning to make me think that those with experience were going to have to get creative with new applications. We were running out of rep road so to speak. I say that these were secondary assumptions dependent upon fixed paradigms that MRT now negates.

I think that’s pretty cool. So many rules were just secondary assumptions based upon a limited premise. Remove the foundation and you remove the second level as well

Thoughts anyone?

DH

2

[quote]DH wrote:
That is my premise. Seems to me that this popular and oft-quoted “rule” should be negated by MRT variants. As long as you are working to accelerate the load, the band of functional percent maxs broadens greatly. Reps will be all over the place in some instances

We’ve been told that advanced bbs need to focus on 80%+ intensity ranges (70-90% overall). We’ve been told that advanced bbs should only exceed 10 reps rarely. All this was beginning to make me think that those with experience were going to have to get creative with new applications. We were running out of rep road so to speak. I say that these were secondary assumptions dependent upon fixed paradigms that MRT now negates.

I think that’s pretty cool. So many rules were just secondary assumptions based upon a limited premise. Remove the foundation and you remove the second level as well

Thoughts anyone?

DH
[/quote]

Personally, as of right now, I don’t believe that muscles adapt to rep ranges. Muscle’s can’t count, so how could they know how many reps you’re doing?

Now, might they be able to adapt to a certain TUT? Yeah, perhaps. But honestly, as long as you’re increasing resistance, you’re still going to build muscle. And on top of that, why on earth would we want to avoid adaptation?

Building muscle is an adaptation to being exposed to greater resistance/tension. Heck, I’d say that we want as much adaptation as we can get, the whole point of what we’re doing is adaptation.

3

Hey Sento,

Well, acclimation in a negative context. As in many coaches espouse that working in the same rep ranges causes the positive adaptations we hope to occur to be lessened over time.

I think that what is really behind the concept has more to do with the assumed corresponding load. You know, 80%1rm = 7/8 reps max etc…

Its another assumption based on an assumed construct that I think the more “alive” concepts of EDT and MRT have broken away from. Yet still top coaches harp on how we acclimate to rep ranges and must therefore switch them around, when that’s really not the core issue.

DH

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
DH wrote:
That is my premise. Seems to me that this popular and oft-quoted “rule” should be negated by MRT variants. As long as you are working to accelerate the load, the band of functional percent maxs broadens greatly. Reps will be all over the place in some instances

We’ve been told that advanced bbs need to focus on 80%+ intensity ranges (70-90% overall). We’ve been told that advanced bbs should only exceed 10 reps rarely. All this was beginning to make me think that those with experience were going to have to get creative with new applications. We were running out of rep road so to speak. I say that these were secondary assumptions dependent upon fixed paradigms that MRT now negates.

I think that’s pretty cool. So many rules were just secondary assumptions based upon a limited premise. Remove the foundation and you remove the second level as well

Thoughts anyone?

DH

Personally, as of right now, I don’t believe that muscles adapt to rep ranges. Muscle’s can’t count, so how could they know how many reps you’re doing?

Now, might they be able to adapt to a certain TUT? Yeah, perhaps. But honestly, as long as you’re increasing resistance, you’re still going to build muscle. And on top of that, why on earth would we want to avoid adaptation?

Building muscle is an adaptation to being exposed to greater resistance/tension. Heck, I’d say that we want as much adaptation as we can get, the whole point of what we’re doing is adaptation.[/quote]

4

[quote]DH wrote:
Hey Sento,

Well, acclimation in a negative context. As in many coaches espouse that working in the same rep ranges causes the positive adaptations we hope to occur to be lessened over time.

I think that what is really behind the concept has more to do with the assumed corresponding load. You know, 80%1rm = 7/8 reps max etc…

Its another assumption based on an assumed construct that I think the more “alive” concepts of EDT and MRT have broken away from. Yet still top coaches harp on how we acclimate to rep ranges and must therefore switch them around, when that’s really not the core issue.

DH
[/quote]

Hi DH,

Well, once again I’m not so certain that I’m convinced that your body ever “adapts” (in a negative context) to a given rep range. Well, that is if you’re consistently increasing the resistance. And honestly it doesn’t really make sense if you think about it.

For instance, there may be hormonal and neurological functions that get used to a certain rep range and adjust accordingly. But, really this would once again be sort of a benefit, unless of course you’re trying to be a “jack of all trades, but a master of none” (basically you want your body to be able to do a whole crap load of different tasks, but none of them great).

All we really know about building muscle is that it occurs due to that muscle having to overcome greater and greater resistance. Even as far back as Milo of Greece (who used to carry a cow on his back everyday between Olympic games to build strength and muscle) we’ve got stories of people getting stronger due to having to overcome increased loads.

In the case of Milo, it’s not like his days got longer, or he was counting the number of steps that he took each day to avoid his body adapting to the load, he knew that as the cow grew, so would his muscles in order to meet the demands.

Sure, you can probably play around with all kinds of set/rep schemes, TUT’s, splits, etc… and to an extent you might see some benefits from doing this. If you were an athlete for example and needed to develop many different physical attributes, then I think that changing things around like this would be very helpful.

But, you can also just continually add resistance, and that’s probably going to give you the best gains in terms of pure muscle. Lots of body builders train the exact same way for years on end and still build fantastic physiques. And it’s a heck of a lot easier too. :wink:

Honestly to each their own. If you really like periodizing, and switching around set/rep schemes and all that, and feel that it’s giving you good results, then I say great.

But, I personally haven’t been convinced that you MUST continually change up set/rep schemes in order to continue building muscle, or build an impressive physique.

Good training,

Sentoguy

5

Good stuff, Sento.

I too think that the likely benefits to rep range bouncing center on hormonal and neurological variations. Potentially. Things like blood occlusion and substrate utilization variances due to constant cadence reps or longer TUT’s may be of some benefit and trigger sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in unique ways.

Really, in addition to adding load, which I find to be an endeavor with diminishing returns after a certain strength level has been achieved, volume and density are more important variables than most else with respect to serious hypertrophy.

And Abel’s ideas on joint angle and plane of motion altering recruitment focus also seem to make sense from my past experience. Zatsiorsky also mentions this in SPST. That those interested in maximal hypertrophy should stimulate the muscle from as many angles as practically possible. Assuming safety and the potential to use a “significant” load. That being a highly relative term.

All in all, like so many issues in life, rules are made based upon an interpretation of the fundamental data. Kinda like the directions one might receive for how to get from Canada to Mexico. It’s all predicated on your chosen means. Different directions for a vehichle, a boat, or a plane. The methodology/route is directly dependent on the means/mode of transportation.

And I think that what happens is that so many lifters, coaches included, have subconsciously accepted and dogmatized certain assumptions that they become unable to think outside the box and see the hypertrophy formula in a more pure and simplistic paradigm.

Really to grow muscle you only need a few simple constants. Sufficient load, sufficient volume, and progressive overload. Overload, of course, broadly defined beyond the limited assumption of constantly adding more weight to the bar.

I’ve said it dozens of times, growth is a function of protein degradation and subsequent supercompensation via MPS. The Energetic Theory (see Zatsiorsky and Tsatsouline for the best lay explanations for any following this discussion from the shadows)is simple and elegant. It also allows you to strip away all of the artificial constructs imposed by average joes and experts alike, and rediscover the simplicity to this whole pursuit of muscle mass.

Well anyway, blah, blah, blah…

Best,
DH

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
DH wrote:
Hey Sento,

Well, acclimation in a negative context. As in many coaches espouse that working in the same rep ranges causes the positive adaptations we hope to occur to be lessened over time.

I think that what is really behind the concept has more to do with the assumed corresponding load. You know, 80%1rm = 7/8 reps max etc…

Its another assumption based on an assumed construct that I think the more “alive” concepts of EDT and MRT have broken away from. Yet still top coaches harp on how we acclimate to rep ranges and must therefore switch them around, when that’s really not the core issue.

DH

Hi DH,

Well, once again I’m not so certain that I’m convinced that your body ever “adapts” (in a negative context) to a given rep range. Well, that is if you’re consistently increasing the resistance. And honestly it doesn’t really make sense if you think about it.

For instance, there may be hormonal and neurological functions that get used to a certain rep range and adjust accordingly. But, really this would once again be sort of a benefit, unless of course you’re trying to be a “jack of all trades, but a master of none” (basically you want your body to be able to do a whole crap load of different tasks, but none of them great).

All we really know about building muscle is that it occurs due to that muscle having to overcome greater and greater resistance. Even as far back as Milo of Greece (who used to carry a cow on his back everyday between Olympic games to build strength and muscle) we’ve got stories of people getting stronger due to having to overcome increased loads.

In the case of Milo, it’s not like his days got longer, or he was counting the number of steps that he took each day to avoid his body adapting to the load, he knew that as the cow grew, so would his muscles in order to meet the demands.

Sure, you can probably play around with all kinds of set/rep schemes, TUT’s, splits, etc… and to an extent you might see some benefits from doing this. If you were an athlete for example and needed to develop many different physical attributes, then I think that changing things around like this would be very helpful.

But, you can also just continually add resistance, and that’s probably going to give you the best gains in terms of pure muscle. Lots of body builders train the exact same way for years on end and still build fantastic physiques. And it’s a heck of a lot easier too. :wink:

Honestly to each their own. If you really like periodizing, and switching around set/rep schemes and all that, and feel that it’s giving you good results, then I say great.

But, I personally haven’t been convinced that you MUST continually change up set/rep schemes in order to continue building muscle, or build an impressive physique.

Good training,

Sentoguy

[/quote]

6

[quote]DH wrote:
Really to grow muscle you only need a few simple constants. Sufficient load, sufficient volume, and progressive overload. Overload, of course, broadly defined beyond the limited assumption of constantly adding more weight to the bar.

I’ve said it dozens of times, growth is a function of protein degradation and subsequent supercompensation via MPS. The Energetic Theory (see Zatsiorsky and Tsatsouline for the best lay explanations for any following this discussion from the shadows)is simple and elegant. It also allows you to strip away all of the artificial constructs imposed by average joes and experts alike, and rediscover the simplicity to this whole pursuit of muscle mass.

Well anyway, blah, blah, blah…

Best,
DH

[/quote]

True, but after you stop growing because of adaptation is where the art comes in. Anyone can start lifting and gain using your formula. But once your body stops adapting you need to find a new approach.

Those that can manipulate their body to the point where their body is always, or nearly always, adapting are those that become champions.

Growth always comes from change. The art is finding the right amount of change at the right time CONTINUOUSLY!

7

This is a good thread.

Pavel’s always said the way to grow is to ‘get a pump using a heavy weight.’ That definition is extremely helpful by itself; but when you try to build a system around a concept, there will always be flaws, because no system can account for every contingency, every difference between individuals, etc…

For instance, Jay Ferruggia has noted that for beginners, using a low percentage 1RM for high reps is productive for gaining size. Then you become an intermediate and it stops working. But once you get very strong, it suddenly works again…who knows why? Personally, I don’t care, but I’m sure it has to do with the systemic disruption you become capable of when you become very strong, and the kind of toll that doing something like DB presses with 150 lbs for 20 reps actually takes.

As far as Chad’s new ideas, I really like where he’s going. My objections to some of his work in the past were that the concepts were right on, but the application was often mystifying. I’m sure all of his programs have yielded success in many people who tried them. However, when I see back extensions prescribed for 17 sets of singles w/ 90 percent 1RM, that doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. Or external rotations for high sets of low reps. Or dips for heavy singles. Or doing situps as DE work. All of these things have been part of some of Chad’s programs.

But I think he’s come full circle and gotten to the meat of things. I think his 25 method article, probably his shortest, might be his best work. And I think people who follow those prescriptions, and the ones in the MRT article, will do better than the people carrying printed templates of his older stuff to the gym. And I’m quite certain they will do better with this kind of training than they would on most anything else.

While I’ve criticized some of Chad’s programming choices, I’ll say that his real strength, as DH implied, is being able to get beyond common assumptions to the heart of what matters in training. And I think he has a good idea of what matters.

So when you give someone a list of A1., A2., B1., B2., 4x12, 3x8, 10x3, etc…I don’t think you’re getting to the core of what matters in the training process.

When you tell someone to go do a compound push, pull, and lower body drill, using a 4-6 RM for about 25 reps per drill, I think you get a lot closer. If you told them they might have to goose the numbers a little one way or the other once in awhile, deload a little bit every few weeks, make small changes to the lifts when things get stale, and keep plugging away, you’d basically be teaching them everything they need to know to get massively big and strong.