My 1990 Ford Mustang five liter (has the 5.0 badge on the fender).
I FUCKING love mustangs… specifically i like the mustang Shelby GT500… White with red please… with the snake.
JJ, have you ever looked at a NS electrical response graph for high reps and heavy contraction, the NS response and electrical signals are smooth and coordinated for about the first 6 reps, and then from 6- 20 get more and more disorganized and chaotic.
With a heavy weight, it will simply not be able to be lifted with an uncoordinated contraction, even if you are TRYING to lift afap.
Im sorry, bro, but you rating Waterbury’s work based on his physique is crazy considering you are on here all the time and can barely bench 2 plates. If you are going to go ad hominem: How is it possible that you are giving everyone advice, and talking about how you can get strength and size up, when you cant bring a lagging body part up to below average.
If you knew how to train your own body correctly, then it would be up to par. I personally do not like most of Waterbury’s stuff, but his logic behind strength gains is solid. It is absurd to be that people are on here, writing in every thread they can possibly comment on, and they cant train themselves.
By lifting afap and to failure all your asking for is over training with no extra benefit. MAYBE you are not just not strong enough (NS coordination) to elicit maximum contraction, so it would be impossible for you to over train.
I know if i were to lift something afap with maximum weight for a crazy amount of reps often, I would quickly overtrain. I also know this would be true with most strong lifters, regardless of AAS use.
I want to clarify this thread is about strength gains, not size, as their training principles are quite different
[quote]getfast24 wrote:
JJ, have you ever looked at a NS electrical response graph for high reps and heavy contraction, the NS response and electrical signals are smooth and coordinated for about the first 6 reps, and then from 6- 20 get more and more disorganized and chaotic.
With a heavy weight, it will simply not be able to be lifted with an uncoordinated contraction, even if you are TRYING to lift afap.
Im sorry, bro, but you rating Waterbury’s work based on his physique is crazy considering you are on here all the time and can barely bench 2 plates. If you are going to go ad hominem: How is it possible that you are giving everyone advice, and talking about how you can get strength and size up, when you cant bring a lagging body part up to below average.
If you knew how to train your own body correctly, then it would be up to par. I personally do not like most of Waterbury’s stuff, but his logic behind strength gains is solid. It is absurd to be that people are on here, writing in every thread they can possibly comment on, and they cant train themselves.
By lifting afap and to failure all your asking for is over training with no extra benefit. MAYBE you are not just not strong enough (NS coordination) to elicit maximum contraction, so it would be impossible for you to over train. I know if i were to lift something afap with maximum weight for a crazy amount of reps often, I would quickly overtrain.
I also know this would be true with most strong lifters, regardless of AAS use.[/quote]
Yet i can squat 3.5 plates and pull just under 4? that is pretty impressive for my size actually… i also wasnt aware that a 1.2x bodyweight bench was too poor - especially as i do not train for strength.
I might also remind you that while my bench is weak - my chest has recently been brought upto par in how it looks, and while i still want it bigger, it is in proportion.
i might ALSO add that i am not training for strength, i train for size - And i ask you to find just ONE quote from me where i say i can bring up anyones strength… i would NEVER have said it! I do in no way consider myself a strength coach - far from it.
I fail to see what my bench has to do with my knowledge - my physique speaks for itself actually, and i am confident that anyone who looks at me might assume that i know what i am doing, whether that is the case or not.
As for Waterbury, i think if you re-read my post, you will see that the reason for slating his work is based on knowledge - the physique is less than impressive is all, if his system is so effective FOR HYPERTROPHY as he claims.
i have a weak bench - no argument there, yet my squat and deadlift are decent for my size - plus my skinny physique holds 40-50lbs of extra muscle from an untrained 145-150lb bodytype… yet you assume that my bench number means anything.
Even if i did hold any light to strength - which i dont, building my physique (i will remind you again i am a bodyhbuilder - not a strength athlete. I do not need to be particularly strong) is not really in need of max numbers.
ALSO sparky, i wasnt talking about waterburys system as it relates to strength gains - muscle. I dont train for strength - muscle. I am more than capable of training myself well - and the aesthetic results speak for themselves, when i drop a few %, i will post a picture for you specially.
As for your overtraining rant - i train to failure on every set more or less, 4+ times a week, and this doesnt overtrain me to any great degree. I am not special in my recovery or drug use, nor do i have top notch genes - yet i am not overtraining, from very painful, failing sets… go figure!
MAYBE it is because i was NEVER talking about maximum weight. All your points are accurate IF i was coming from a strength background OR point of view. I do not, and i was not… so apologise bitch.
J
J
[quote]getfast24 wrote:
I want to clarify this thread is about strength gains, not size, as their training principles are quite different[/quote]
re-read my posts… i was NEVER talking about strength training. (only in relation to the size principle with a 20 rep set!)
Well, the point im trying to make, is that once you go above a certain number of reps (~6) moving the weight afap becomes almost useless because NS recruitment stagers to such an extent that the type 2 fibers are actually not being recruited efficiently
[quote] Brook wrote:
I FUCKING love mustangs… specifically i like the mustang Shelby GT500… White with red please… with the snake.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s funny. I just got through watching I Am Legend, where Will beats the crap out of one like you described. Sweet ride!
[quote] Brook wrote:
getfast24 wrote:
JJ, have you ever looked at a NS electrical response graph for high reps and heavy contraction, the NS response and electrical signals are smooth and coordinated for about the first 6 reps, and then from 6- 20 get more and more disorganized and chaotic.
With a heavy weight, it will simply not be able to be lifted with an uncoordinated contraction, even if you are TRYING to lift afap.
Im sorry, bro, but you rating Waterbury’s work based on his physique is crazy considering you are on here all the time and can barely bench 2 plates. If you are going to go ad hominem:
How is it possible that you are giving everyone advice, and talking about how you can get strength and size up, when you cant bring a lagging body part up to below average.
If you knew how to train your own body correctly, then it would be up to par. I personally do not like most of Waterbury’s stuff, but his logic behind strength gains is solid. It is absurd to be that people are on here, writing in every thread they can possibly comment on, and they cant train themselves.
By lifting afap and to failure all your asking for is over training with no extra benefit. MAYBE you are not just not strong enough (NS coordination) to elicit maximum contraction, so it would be impossible for you to over train.
I know if i were to lift something afap with maximum weight for a crazy amount of reps often, I would quickly overtrain.
I also know this would be true with most strong lifters, regardless of AAS use.
Yet i can squat 3.5 plates and pull just under 4? that is pretty impressive for my size actually… i also wasnt aware that a 1.2x bodyweight bench was too poor - especially as i do not train for strength.
I might also remind you that while my bench is weak - my chest has recently been brought upto par in how it looks, and while i still want it bigger, it is in proportion.
i might ALSO add that i am not training for strength, i train for size - And i ask you to find just ONE quote from me where i say i can bring up anyones strength… i would NEVER have said it! I do in no way consider myself a strength coach - far from it.
I fail to see what my bench has to do with my knowledge - my physique speaks for itself actually, and i am confident that anyone who looks at me might assume that i know what i am doing, whether that is the case or not.
As for Waterbury, i think if you re-read my post, you will see that the reason for slating his work is based on knowledge - the physique is less than impressive is all, if his system is so effective FOR HYPERTROPHY as he claims.
i have a weak bench - no argument there, yet my squat and deadlift are decent for my size - plus my skinny physique holds 40-50lbs of extra muscle from an untrained 145-150lb bodytype… yet you assume that my bench number means anything.
Even if i did hold any light to strength - which i dont, building my physique (i will remind you again i am a bodyhbuilder - not a strength athlete. I do not need to be particularly strong) is not really in need of max numbers.
ALSO sparky, i wasnt talking about waterburys system as it relates to strength gains - muscle. I dont train for strength - muscle. I am more than capable of training myself well - and the aesthetic results speak for themselves, when i drop a few %, i will post a picture for you specially.
As for your overtraining rant - i train to failure on every set more or less, 4+ times a week, and this doesnt overtrain me to any great degree. I am not special in my recovery or drug use, nor do i have top notch genes - yet i am not overtraining, from very painful, failing sets… go figure!
MAYBE it is because i was NEVER talking about maximum weight. All your points are accurate IF i was coming from a strength background OR point of view. I do not, and i was not… so apologise bitch.
J
J[/quote]
I’m with JJ on training to failure. I work out 6 days a week, always train to failure on every set ME, and I do a LOT of sets. 230+ sets a week, granted I train every body part with pretty decent volume, including traps, forearms, and calves (60 sets go to those per week alone). It’s just how I go about things. My body has adjusted to stuff like this.
Honestly, I can’t remember that last time I didn’t train to failure when it wasn’t on a warm-up set. I remember when doing weighted dips this week that I was so into failure that I took literally 15 seconds straight to get up on that last rep. Nearly turned into an oompa loompa, but was worth it. I probably used muscle fibers I didn’t even know I had.
How I differ from JJ is that while I train ultimately to gain the maximum amount of muscle, I know that only to do that, I must get stronger, therefore I build up strength to build muscle.
JJ, it’s my philosophy (and many others) that all bodybuilders are strength athletes, but not all strength athletes are bodybuilders. That’s why Ronnie Coleman can Bench in the 500’s, squat in the 800’s, and deadlift in the 800’s. I alternate my workouts between strength and size.
3 strength workouts per week and 3 bodybuilding workouts per week and it has achieved me both size and strength. I have a 2x BW bench at my weight and beyond a 3x BW squat and deadlift and I attribute my physique to reaching those goals.
Impressive.
Dont get me wrong - i dont lift light all the time… i mostly use 4-9 reps, and SOMETIMES do a few weeks of pyramids in the max strength range - however, it isnt what drives me… i try to increase my strength more to increase muscle, if the strength doesnt go up but the muscle does - thats fine by me.
My bodytype dictates that i will NEVER be a strongman, shit, my wrists couldnt take it. But i am decent for my size - maybe i should do some more ME days… But if the muscle is growing, then why? I have in the past and will again, use max strength macros to bust through plateaus, but until then - IMO i dont need it - 250lbs bench or no.
[quote]getfast24 wrote:
Well, the point im trying to make, is that once you go above a certain number of reps (~6) moving the weight afap becomes almost useless because NS recruitment stagers to such an extent that the type 2 fibers are actually not being recruited efficiently[/quote]
Oh really? well why didnt you just say that instead of a bullshit personal assault, Punchy?
In that case, FINE. I understand. How hard was that?
MF
jj
Been gone for the holiday weekend. In general strength will fade. How it fades depends largely on how it was acquired. Training methodology is a huge factor.
Absolutely I will testify that tren surges 1RM like nothing else. But for me that goes hand in hand with the fact that I do weekly 1RM’s. After I come off tren I will continue the 1RM’s because that’s how I train and in hopes of minimizing the loses.
[quote]saps wrote:
Been gone for the holiday weekend. In general strength will fade. How it fades depends largely on how it was acquired. Training methodology is a huge factor.
Absolutely I will testify that tren surges 1RM like nothing else. But for me that goes hand in hand with the fact that I do weekly 1RM’s. After I come off tren I will continue the 1RM’s because that’s how I train and in hopes of minimizing the loses.[/quote]
Saps honestly you are THE guy I’m watching right now to see how you turn out in terms of strength loss because you’ve gained so much during your cycle. Keep that log up to date so we all know how you’re progressing.
Yeah I need to update it. Do I have videos I finally pulled off the camera and onto my PC. Just need to upload them when I get home. I tweaked myself quite a bit with a total bomb out with 750. I’m using this week to not take any max lifts; probably a great idea. I will get that log updated soon.
T-Nation s topic update didnt come since two days and i though nobody answered it!! Jesus .
I usually lifted to failure in most of training history. I train for functional hypertrophy so strength is a little more important.
However, Brook i think that lifting to-non failure res asap is a great way.
right now i have been training like that for a month. It definitely is good and challenging.
What i found best is that i lift asap and stop when the bar noticably slows 70% of the time but for the other 30% which are the latest and heaviest sets, i go to failure.
It is great to combine both. For example my arms are lagging incredibly comparing to my body. So i started training them 2x week, with different patterns, also added isometric work. I train as i described.
I can easily tell that it is working. I can already feel i can recruit more fibers of my arms after a month.
[quote]saps wrote:
Been gone for the holiday weekend. In general strength will fade. How it fades depends largely on how it was acquired. Training methodology is a huge factor.
Absolutely I will testify that tren surges 1RM like nothing else. But for me that goes hand in hand with the fact that I do weekly 1RM’s. After I come off tren I will continue the 1RM’s because that’s how I train and in hopes of minimizing the loses.[/quote]
Can you give more info’s on that please??
In my research, it is acquired in 4-8 rep zone. Also why is 1RM better than 4RM(example) better than keeping strength if a person never trained with maximal weights??
Did you lose good amount of strength after pct of tren cycle?? That’s the main part of my research. Tren,neural improvement,keepable strength relation.
But even if you lost good amount of strength from trenbolone, the amount of strength you kept is definitely better than the amount of strength (in lbs) you kept from other AAS, am i correct???
thanks
[quote]dallasused wrote:
Can you give more info’s on that please??
In my research, it is acquired in 4-8 rep zone. Also why is 1RM better than 4RM(example) better than keeping strength if a person never trained with maximal weights??
Did you lose good amount of strength after pct of tren cycle?? That’s the main part of my research. Tren,neural improvement,keepable strength relation.
But even if you lost good amount of strength from trenbolone, the amount of strength you kept is definitely better than the amount of strength (in lbs) you kept from other AAS, am i correct???
thanks
[/quote]
I’m a powerlifter so we only measure strength in 1RM’s no one carries what you can lift 4 times and certainly not 8. 1RM is the truest barometer of strength anyway. 1RM’s are physically and mentally a entirely different animal than even a set of 3-4. You must take heavy singles to get better at your 1RM.
By and large I am a disciple of the Westside Methodology. My routine is fairly close to the classic Westside Template too.
Its hard to give you solid evidence about the coming off of tren. I last used tren in 2006 where I was not nearly doing the kind of routine I am now so its very hard to quantify in poundages what the gains and loses were. I’m on it now and will be another few weeks. By all means I will log my progress and recession.
I would like to say now that I’m highly anticipating your last statement being true. I cannot imagine since my strength has surged better on tren than anything else ever that I would not retain a higher poundage than anything else as well.
Ya percentages of 1RM are the standard for measuring load across the board actually Dallas.
Also Dallas, i have no doubt as to the strength benefits of afap (NOT TO FAILURE) I mean, it isnt recommended to train to failure when training for strength anyway, it misses the point entirely IMO.
I WAS saying that when you, for example lift your weight and stop when the speed slows (as that is an indicator of the fast twich fibres fatiguing)… Then i would continue repping out - to fatigue many more fibres, not just the fast twich - creating more stress to the belly, and potentially more growth.
But in my minds eye i was using a weight that was around a 7RM or so… with the slowing of the reps at around 3 reps possibly.
I also doubt highly that you can physically FEEL that you can recruit more fibres mate - AFAIK, strength is the indicator…
What does this ‘feeling’ feel like?
well it is hard to explain that feeling
but it is the opposite of what i was felling when my arms were lacking due to poor motor activation.
I started to feel my lacking bodypart more on the exercises. The strength surely gone up.
Actually you are right on one thing. We should only care about strength, no motor bullshit. If you are gaining strength, your motor responses are improving, too.
Did you start reading your book by the way??
No what I am saying is it is not really possible to ‘feel’ such a thing. I was calling BS… What you are feeling is actually an increased mind/muscle connection - which IS increased proprioception/neural efficiency, and is the cause for the newbie gains in strength - NOT actual strength.
You can just feel the ability to contract the muscle with more ability - whereas i assume before you couldnt.
In a trained individual, one cannot ‘feel’ the difference in using 79% of the motor units for a muscle, and 81% - over say a month or two.
As for the book - I started it last year… i pick it up every now and then - it is a reference book, not a novella!
it is one of my favourite books:
Brook(Book)