[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
would yoga increase your mobility and make ROM easier? plus its a great way to meet chicks. [/quote]
I just got this in an email from EC himself this morning.
It’s about yoga/pilates. There’s your answer.
Damn how are some of you lifting 8 hours a week? I guess it’s largely dependent on how much rest you take and the split. I’m only working out 3 days a week right now for about 45min. per session. I’m gaining weight and strength has gone up pretty quickly .
probably around 6.5-8 hours but i do take my time
[quote]pumped340 wrote:
Damn how are some of you lifting 8 hours a week? I guess it’s largely dependent on how much rest you take and the split.[/quote]
It also depends on volume. (Not of course that you were saying it doesn’t.)
Yesterday for example it took me an hour to train just calves, despite short rest.
Approximately speaking (not having the workout in front of me right now) it was
Leg press calf raise: 10 sets with 30 sec rest between sets.
Each set took about 60 seconds, so total time not counting setting it up and taking it down must have been about 15 minutes.
Seated calf raise, very light: 10 sets.
Same story so another 15 minutes.
Seated calf raise, heavier. 3 sets at one weight, 2 sets at higher weight, 1 set at highest weight. (Partial range of motion in later sets.)
Two minutes rest between sets for these, with sets again being about 60 seconds each. So another 18 minutes there.
Total calculated time not counting setting up and tearing down: 48 minutes. Actual time, right about 60 minutes. Maybe it was 55 minutes.
As it happened I was planning to only do a modest amount of biceps work besides the calf, so the total workout was only about an hour. I think I went 5 or 10 minutes over.
But had I been planning to do another bodypart it could have been a 2 hour workout.
So there’s an hour for one bodypart without really long rest times. Sometimes it was 2 minutes which some would call fairly long, but most times only 30 seconds.
It’s also not because of a split putting so much into one day. Actually I changed my routine a bit – for the idiotic reason of having lost my workout book and not remembering what I had planned out, and coming up with something different – so contrary to what I posted the other day, now it’s what I like to call 8 days out of every 11, though truthfully it’s 11 out of 11 as the “off” days still have calves and some arm work.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
pumped340 wrote:
Damn how are some of you lifting 8 hours a week? I guess it’s largely dependent on how much rest you take and the split.
It also depends on volume. (Not of course that you were saying it doesn’t.)
Yesterday for example it took me an hour to train just calves, despite short rest.
Approximately speaking (not having the workout in front of me right now) it was
Leg press calf raise: 10 sets with 30 sec rest between sets.
Each set took about 60 seconds, so total time not counting setting it up and taking it down must have been about 15 minutes.
Seated calf raise, very light: 10 sets.
Same story so another 15 minutes.
Seated calf raise, heavier. 3 sets at one weight, 2 sets at higher weight, 1 set at highest weight. (Partial range of motion in later sets.)
Two minutes rest between sets for these, with sets again being about 60 seconds each. So another 18 minutes there.
Total calculated time not counting setting up and tearing down: 48 minutes. Actual time, right about 60 minutes. Maybe it was 55 minutes.
As it happened I was planning to only do a modest amount of biceps work besides the calf, so the total workout was only about an hour. I think I went 5 or 10 minutes over.
But had I been planning to do another bodypart it could have been a 2 hour workout.
So there’s an hour for one bodypart without really long rest times. Sometimes it was 2 minutes which some would call fairly long, but most times only 30 seconds.
It’s also not because of a split putting so much into one day. Actually I changed my routine a bit – for the idiotic reason of having lost my workout book and not remembering what I had planned out, and coming up with something different – so contrary to what I posted the other day, now it’s what I like to call 8 days out of every 11, though truthfully it’s 11 out of 11 as the “off” days still have calves and some arm work. [/quote]
and you don’t find an hour and 26 sets for calves ridiculous? I mean do you honestly think thats necessary?
NO muscle needs that many sets especially if your a natural. Look at the guys who do DC, fairly low volume and they’re generally bigger than those doing the extremely high volume crap.
[quote]B rocK wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
would yoga increase your mobility and make ROM easier? plus its a great way to meet chicks.
I just got this in an email from EC himself this morning.
It’s about yoga/pilates. There’s your answer.[/quote]
i never knew Cressey was based in Waltham, my dad used to live there its probly bout 25-30 minute drive depending on traffic.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
B rocK wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
would yoga increase your mobility and make ROM easier? plus its a great way to meet chicks.
I just got this in an email from EC himself this morning.
It’s about yoga/pilates. There’s your answer.
i never knew Cressey was based in Waltham, my dad used to live there its probly bout 25-30 minute drive depending on traffic.[/quote]
He’s actually in Hudson. Even if it’s an hour drive, I’d highly suggest going there sometime. The facility is just what we T-Nationer’s dream about, the atmosphere is great (tons of people doing being sweet) and there is a 101% chance you’ll learn something that will improve your training no matter how badass you already are. It’s great.
[quote]pumped340 wrote:
and you don’t find an hour and 26 sets for calves ridiculous? I mean do you honestly think thats necessary?[/quote]
Hmm, if I thought it was ridiculous I don’t think I would have done it.
As for “necessary,” not necessarily all the time, no. But I don’t do it that way all the time.
Also you are no doubt not considering my individual case.
I had stupidly decided a while back that inasmuch as the soleus itself is unaffected by knee angle, and therefore also can work fully with the knee being straight, I could just do standing calf raises, leg press calf raises, etc and working really hard at that, presumably the soleus would still be working hard.
So I went quite a while, on this stupid theory, with no seated calf raises.
Result, smaller calves.
When I resumed seated calf raised I was shockingly weaker at them. It seems that regardless that the soleus can work hard in the standing position, and regardless that I was working extremely hard in the standing position, the soleus was not working hard, got weaker and atrophied.
So apparently for me the soleus does little work in standing calf raises and leg press calf raises.
Accordingly, in my case you’re mistaken to think that the soleus got 26 sets, or that the gastrocs did. More like 16 and 10.
And not even really deserving being counted as 16 (though literally true) for the soleus, as the lightest weight was hardly any work for the lower part of the range of motion, and the heavier weights gave only partial reps.
So one might say that the top part of the range of motion got worked hard in 10 sets and the lower and mid parts in 6 sets, rather than any part in all 16. However even if you count it as 16, I disagree that that number would necessarily be too much.
How dogmatic.
If you want to be literal, and have a narrow definition of “needs,” your statement may be OK.
But a dogmatic view that no one can profit, including natural trainers, from around 10 or 16 sets per muscle, or even 26, is too narrow-minded and neglects a lot of case histories.
Also for the record, I wasn’t what I would call “on” as for the last few weeks and the next couple of months I am on a protocol which is so mild as to I think not reduce LH. However I’m not at-the-moment natural either (nor in lifetime terms) as there is some very light assistance. But the above would have been completely reasonable for me as one of several protocols used while completely “off” as well.
[quote]
Look at the guys who do DC, fairly low volume and they’re generally bigger than those doing the extremely high volume crap. [/quote]
“Crap” and “extreme.”
This seems very narrow-minded and unaware of what has worked well for a whole shipload of lifters over time.
Your reasoning seems to be, Protocol A works well therefore all else is “crap.”
Not correct.
Let me put it this way: If you’re convinced, as you are, that you can’t do something, and therefore never develop the ability, then you can’t do it. So I don’t doubt that you can’t do workouts such as this – or at least not working hard throughout – or doubt your belief that it would overtrain you or what-have-you.
I completely expect you’re right that you could not do this. But where we disagree is that I fully expect you COULD develop the ability to do it and do so profitably, as one of many productive ways to train, had you the understanding of it and therefore were enabled to work at it with positive attitude rather than an “it’s crap” attitude or most likely never even trying because you know better, you think.
However, I surely don’t expect that my saying that will make the slightest difference. I have never seen someone pretty clearly bound to some given dogma turn right around just from a single post or anything like that.
6 to 8 hours of lifting
1.5 to 2.0 hours of cardio, stretching, pre-hab, etc.
5 days
The squat portion of legs alone can last 45 min to an hour with a partner; another 45 min or so after that.
Probably about 3-4 hrs of good lifting in a week. I think the rest of the time I spend eating …
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
pumped340 wrote:
and you don’t find an hour and 26 sets for calves ridiculous? I mean do you honestly think thats necessary?
Hmm, if I thought it was ridiculous I don’t think I would have done it.
As for “necessary,” not necessarily all the time, no. But I don’t do it that way all the time.
Also you are no doubt not considering my individual case.
I had stupidly decided a while back that inasmuch as the soleus itself is unaffected by knee angle, and therefore also can work fully with the knee being straight, I could just do standing calf raises, leg press calf raises, etc and working really hard at that, presumably the soleus would still be working hard.
So I went quite a while, on this stupid theory, with no seated calf raises.
Result, smaller calves.
When I resumed seated calf raised I was shockingly weaker at them. It seems that regardless that the soleus can work hard in the standing position, and regardless that I was working extremely hard in the standing position, the soleus was not working hard, got weaker and atrophied.
So apparently for me the soleus does little work in standing calf raises and leg press calf raises.
Accordingly, in my case you’re mistaken to think that the soleus got 26 sets, or that the gastrocs did. More like 16 and 10.
And not even really deserving being counted as 16 (though literally true) for the soleus, as the lightest weight was hardly any work for the lower part of the range of motion, and the heavier weights gave only partial reps.
So one might say that the top part of the range of motion got worked hard in 10 sets and the lower and mid parts in 6 sets, rather than any part in all 16. However even if you count it as 16, I disagree that that number would necessarily be too much.
NO muscle needs that many sets especially if your a natural.
How dogmatic.
If you want to be literal, and have a narrow definition of “needs,” your statement may be OK.
But a dogmatic view that no one can profit, including natural trainers, from around 10 or 16 sets per muscle, or even 26, is too narrow-minded and neglects a lot of case histories.
Also for the record, I wasn’t what I would call “on” as for the last few weeks and the next couple of months I am on a protocol which is so mild as to I think not reduce LH. However I’m not at-the-moment natural either (nor in lifetime terms) as there is some very light assistance. But the above would have been completely reasonable for me as one of several protocols used while completely “off” as well.
Look at the guys who do DC, fairly low volume and they’re generally bigger than those doing the extremely high volume crap.
“Crap” and “extreme.”
This seems very narrow-minded and unaware of what has worked well for a whole shipload of lifters over time.
Your reasoning seems to be, Protocol A works well therefore all else is “crap.”
Not correct.
Let me put it this way: If you’re convinced, as you are, that you can’t do something, and therefore never develop the ability, then you can’t do it. So I don’t doubt that you can’t do workouts such as this – or at least not working hard throughout – or doubt your belief that it would overtrain you or what-have-you.
I completely expect you’re right that you could not do this. But where we disagree is that I fully expect you COULD develop the ability to do it and do so profitably, as one of many productive ways to train, had you the understanding of it and therefore were enabled to work at it with positive attitude rather than an “it’s crap” attitude or most likely never even trying because you know better, you think.
However, I surely don’t expect that my saying that will make the slightest difference. I have never seen someone pretty clearly bound to some given dogma turn right around just from a single post or anything like that.[/quote]
Im not one to blindly follow in one direction. I like low volume trainer but do not find it to be the answer to everything. I know high volume can have its place but
-
I feel like if its used too long with too much intensity you’ll be spinning your wheels getting no where
-
When i think higher volume i think 9-15 sets a muscle. 26 is just crazy and your right, I won’t even believe thats necessary especially for a natural training calves
-
Not so that 26 sets is necessarily too much for a bodypart. Depends on conditions.
-
I am sure I did point out that two muscles were trained in the 26 sets, therefore it was not 26 sets for “a muscle” as you put it, and there was very little training effect of the first exercise fot the second muscle, or the second exercise fot the first muscle.
I do continue to maintain that calling things “just crazy” indicates being closed-minded to those things.
Nobody knows everything, but I, for one, would be very hesitant to call something Bill said crazy. I have a feeling he thought it through pretty thoroughly.
I usually train 2 - 4 hours a week depending on a few things. I do better on lower volume higher intensity type work. Sometimes I’ll switch up though
Well, it can easily come along with finding a framework of explanations that seems logical and even moreso when the advice coming along with that logical framework gives an individual good results, to wind up being reflexively-dismissive of what that framework claims to be wrong.
This is why HIT devotees (and yes DC is a form of HIT, though better than mid-period HIT by which I mean after after the Training Bulletins but before DC, and not referring to Dorian Yates’ methods) tend so readily to call volume training “crazy” or ignorant or stupid or other such things.
Actually pumped’s openness to volume such as the “9-15 sets a muscle” that he cited is far more open-minded than typical for devotees of a differing system.
Indeed, if he agreed with my view that the gastrocs and soleus are different muscles and that the two exercises at least in my case very much target one or the other not both, then I would have violated his stated figures by only one set, in the case of the seated calf raises.
But I guess once past the line at all whatsoever, a thing becomes “crazy”! 
What you say is indeed human nature. I will say though that the DC guys who hang out here (Scott and Sentoguy come immediately to mind) do steadfastly refrain from this.
It is foolish to contend that many really large guys who became really large with a variety of methods somehow didn’t really do so.
I’ll add abs to gastroc and soleus as muscles that are generally able to withstand and benefit from more ambitious work.
Lately I’ve been doing really high rep sets of like 80 or even more for calves, seated and standing. With pretty decent poundages actually. They just never seem to give up. Actually forearms somewhat as well. They can be screaming in pain, but still able to work.
The point is those groups seem to not play by the usual rules.