Overtraining...let's try again

Training Bodybuilding
1

Ok…I made the most horrible an error one can make in my last post a week or so ago by calling muscle “scar” tissue.

I was dead wrong, and I admit it, and I got my ass flamed for it, and deservedly so.

Here’s the scenario I was TRYING to get at the last time, and maybe it will come out right. I’ll try a new tack:

About 8 years ago I worked for a soda company. I had 4 supermarkets I was responsible for on my sales route. I’d say I had to lift and lug anywhere from 400 to 500 cases per day. At about 12 pounds a case, that’s 6,000 pounds of total body workout…often 7 days a week…and that’s not counting transporting all these cases from the truck to the soda aisles to the shelves, etc.

By almost any definition, I was “overtrained” by the very nature of my job. No gym workout I ever had, even to this day, came close to wiping me out the way that job did. Good thing I was 24 when I was doing it.

When I left the company, I happened upon an old picture of myself before I started working there…and I was bigger…much bigger…than I was when I started. The most noticable changes were in the traps, bi’s and legs.

Of course, I didn’t go to the gym while I worked there…I was too exhausted…and yet I grew more muscular.

This leads me to my original question about what we consider to be overtraining. Could it be that no such phenom exists? If you think you’re “overtraining”, maybe you’re simply not taking in enough calories to benefit your hard work at the gym.

I’m SURE there’s a limit that each individual can’t cross in terms of training…a limit that, if crossed, could even seriously jeoperdize his/her health…but I think that limit and/or tolerance is much higher than we’re giving ourselves credit for.

Thoughts?

2

Definitely agree.

If you build upto it I’m sure it’s possible to handle extreme volume (perhaps not extreme intensity though).

-Zulu

3

In my opinion, I think you’ve got it backwards. People tend to think their “limit” is a lot higher than it actually is.

4

I agree that people often set the “overtraining bar” on the low side and just assume they don’t have the recuperative abilities, when in fact it’s more an issue of undereating, than overtraining.

However, I think one needs to distinguish between muscular overtraining and neural/systemic overtraining. At some point, they go hand in hand, but for the most part, I think the fear of overtraining the muscles themselves is largely unwarranted, again up to a point. However, sytemic/neural overtraining I think is something to be respected.

5

I think Chad Waterbury is right up your alley.

6

“If you think you’re “overtraining”, maybe you’re simply not taking in enough calories to benefit your hard work at the gym.”

how very Parrillo… hehehe

Ofcourse there is a limit. it depends on your training age, geneitics etc and most importantly the size of your balls.
Hard pricks push it further so they can push it further

7

Yep I totally agree with the calories/overtraining bit. I tend to like to do more than I “technically” should…but I eat like a freaking horse. I eat more than both my six foot plus male roomies. :slight_smile:

8

The other thing to note here is that increased work capacity raises your threshhold of overtraining. If you do physical work all day, it’s initially going to be a training stimulus and you’re going to grow. Eventually, you’ll become adapted to that level of work, and you’ll need more volume or more intensity to grow. That means that you’ll be able to charge through workouts that would flatten most people. I don’t think it’s really a coincidence that most of the “Golden Age” bodybuilders (Arnold, Franco, Draper, etc.) had day jobs as masons, warehouse workers, etc. They built up a prodigious work capacity, then went through workouts that would kill an ordinary person.

9

Excellent replies, all.

Just to add to this a bit, after reading Christian’s article this week I learned of something rather crucial that had escaped me before.

Most of us at one time or another split our training into hypertrophy / strengh / power phases. I just always assumed that as lifting weights go up, sets naturally come down. I might do 15 sets for chest when doing 8 to 12 reps…but that number would usually drop to 8 to 10 sets if my reps were in the 5 to 7 range.

I never approached it from the angle that it’s more effective to do “x” number of reps total per week regardless of weight used.

If I were in a “strength” phase, using Christian’s philosophy, I would need to do two different exercises, 10 sets each of three reps (assuming hitting each muscle group 2x per week and as per my fiber make up).

WHOA!!! 2 exercises, 10 sets each, 3 reps each set. That’s 20 sets right there just for chest!!! Immediately one would look at that as “overtraining”, but it really isn’t…not when total reps are the goal.

I’m sure our T-bods can handle it.

10

I don’t see the logic in that though. Keeping total volume is great but what if you vary the intensity?

The point is: don’t increase stressing variables simultaneously. You can keep intensity constant and play around with reps and sets. We’re probably see that exact article in 3-4 months…

-Zulu

11

Zulu-

Mind clarifying? It seems much more stressful to increase reps at the same intensity than to increase intensity and decrease reps per set while increasing the number of sets. As an example, if you can bench 225 for 3 sets of 10, you’ll find 225 for 10 sets of 3 embarassingly easy. Being just barely able to complete 10 sets of 3 with 285 guarantees that there’s no way in hell you can do 3 sets of 10 at the same weight. Or are you defining intensity in some way other than percentage of 1RM?

12

Zulu & Chris,

I see both points, but I’m more on the same wavelength with Chris’ thoughts.

And Chris, just to follow up, assuming you did 10 sets of 3 reps at 285 for three, four weeks or longer…and then you dropped back down for sets of 10 at the start of another cycle (hypertrophy), I would not be surprised if your 10-rep sets went up in weight.

In a nutshell, this is periodization. However, the major difference is keeping the number of total reps per week constant regardless of what “phase” you’re in.

I know that me, personally, I never had great results with periodization…but that my be because by the time I got to my 4-6 rep range my set count dropped dramatically (because that’s what I thought you were supposed to do).

I’m much more confident having read this most recent T-mag article, which suggests focusing on total reps per week…not sets.

And it further enforces in my mind that yes, you can do 20 sets for chest, and not overtrain.

Mike

13

Total reps per week is definitely the way to go, IMNSHO. It’s how I periodize my own workouts, and I’ve noticed good results from it. CT’s article was one of those wonderful articles that pop up from time to time validating what I already believed to be true. My own reps per week are currently lower than CT’s, though. I may play around with increasing, or I may just chalk it up to individual difference.

14

Chris,

If 80 reps are for the “genetically gifted” lifter, that puts me in the 120 rep range for sure.

15

Mike,

I’d recommend playing around with it a bit. I’ll frequently be closer to 60 total reps for a body part in a given week and find that it works well–and I don’t consider myself particularly genetically gifted.