Whoa Sento… You’re still going at this… You have the patience of… A very large stone.
My respect, even though I believe the situation to be hopeless.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
This is a great topic.
IMO, going to failure is a CNS failure, not a muscle fiber failure. This is the philosophy behind multiple sets that do not reach failure; because it works the muscle and keeps the CNS out of it as much as possible.
No, it’s not CNS failure, if it’s any nervous system failure, it’s PNS (peripheral nervous system) failure. And even then it’s not. It has to do with the muscle fibers having used up all available energy.
Again, if you supplement/load creatine, you can increase the number of reps that you can do in a set. If it was CNS failure, this would not work. It does work because temporary muscular failure is not CNS failure, but due to a lack of readily available energy. The nervous system is involved in the process of course, but it’s not what fails.
You are talking apples and oranges.
When I say -CNS- I mean the PNS enervation of the MU. And when you lift a very heavy load over 90% 1rm it is NOT a muscle energy issue. It is a neural mechanism that stops the muscle from hurting itself based on the muscle tension. This is related to the GTO and other factors.
Also, while you may see a difference in rep volume with creatine, maxing out in a higher volume set (8-10 reps) is more related to muscle metabolite buildup than muscle energy.
[/quote]
Again, I agree that with very high loads (like 90% 1RM) PNS failure definitely plays a role. Anything over 80-85% 1RM has already recruited all possible MU’s and relies on rate coding to increase force. This is very hard on the nervous system.
I also agree that metabolite buid-up plays some role in fatigue, failure is a combination of both that and energy stores being used up (when talking about moderate reps). Neither metabolite build-up nor lack of available energy is the result of nervous system failure though, so unless you are talking about very low reps/high weight (which isn’t the way the most BB’ers train the majority of the time), failure is not primarily caused by nervous system failure.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Whoa Sento… You’re still going at this… You have the patience of… A very large stone.
My respect, even though I believe the situation to be hopeless.[/quote]
Yeah, well unfortunately I let myself get drawn into an overly theoretical and technical discussion. I had hoped that the evidence that I provided would at least convince several others to open their eyes and observe the real world around them. Sadly I still have people arguing with me that the way that BB’ers have trained successfully for decades is not proven to build muscle most effectively.
Again, I’d love to see what would happen if the authors had to post pictures of their clients to prove the efficacy of their training methods. That right there would clear up a lot of misconceptions that seem to run rampant on this (and other) forums.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Whoa Sento… You’re still going at this… You have the patience of… A very large stone.
My respect, even though I believe the situation to be hopeless.
Yeah, well unfortunately I let myself get drawn into an overly theoretical and technical discussion. I had hoped that the evidence that I provided would at least convince several others to open their eyes and observe the real world around them. Sadly I still have people arguing with me that the way that BB’ers have trained successfully for decades is not proven to build muscle most effectively.
Again, I’d love to see what would happen if the authors had to post pictures of their clients to prove the efficacy of their training methods. That right there would clear up a lot of misconceptions that seem to run rampant on this (and other) forums.[/quote]
I sometimes wonder how you find the time to eat, train and work with all those discussions you get drawn into. This is kinda like the politics ‘n’ world issues forum, just less aggressive overall…
I sincerely hope that this shit won’t burn you out. IH had experiences like that, big D,… Just about everybody.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Whoa Sento… You’re still going at this… You have the patience of… A very large stone.
My respect, even though I believe the situation to be hopeless.
Yeah, well unfortunately I let myself get drawn into an overly theoretical and technical discussion. I had hoped that the evidence that I provided would at least convince several others to open their eyes and observe the real world around them. Sadly I still have people arguing with me that the way that BB’ers have trained successfully for decades is not proven to build muscle most effectively.
Again, I’d love to see what would happen if the authors had to post pictures of their clients to prove the efficacy of their training methods. That right there would clear up a lot of misconceptions that seem to run rampant on this (and other) forums.
I sometimes wonder how you find the time to eat, train and work with all those discussions you get drawn into. This is kinda like the politics ‘n’ world issues forum, just less aggressive overall…
I sincerely hope that this shit won’t burn you out. IH had experiences like that, big D,… Just about everybody.[/quote]
You know (btw I’m eating as I type this and just got back from the gym, LOL) it is mentally draining. Which is one of the reasons I don’t really like getting into these overly theoretical/technical types of discussions anymore (I know judging from the past couple weeks that might be hard to believe LOL).
That’s why I try to keep my advice/posts as simple as possible for the most part. Every now and then though, I get sucked into one and then have a hard time getting out.
I guess if I think someone is truly sincere and is asking for clarification or help I have a hard time not trying to help them. That’s not all that mentally draining, provided that they actually listen and don’t try to argue (generally with completely hypothetical arguments) just about every piece of advice or clarification that was offered.
It’s when you show someone massive amounts of evidence to support your advice/viewpoint and they still refuse to accept reality and continue bringing up either irrelevant or purely theoretical arguments that it gets tiring.
You are right though, this discussion has pretty much reached it’s limitations IMO. I’ve said everything that I feel I need to say on the subject. If someone wants to look at the evidence all around them (and some that I have provided in this thread) and still ignore it in lu of theoretically “superior” methods, be my guest.
Looking for advice, I have done edt and 5x5 style sessions.
I was thinking of trying an edt 5x5 combo workout like this…
Mon. 5x5 & Edt combo
1.5x5 Squats
2.5x5 Pendlay rows
Edt A
pr zone 1 15 min.
A1 Dips
A2 Chin Ups
pr zone 2 15 min.
A3 Barbell Floor Press
A4 Ez Bar curls
Tues.
Plyometric workout 45min.-55min.
Wed. 5x5 & Edt combo
- 5x5 Squats
- 5x5 Incline Bench Press
Edt B
pr zone 1 15 min
B1 Stiff leg deadlifts
B2 Sissy squats
pr zone 2 15 min.
B3 Clean & Press
B4 Hanging leg raise or weighted decline sit ups
Thur.
HIIT 20-25 min.
Fri.
Repeat Mon.
Sat.
Stretch/Recovery
Sun.
Rest
I am wondering if this is too much fatigue for the CNS or are there any modifications I should do to make this better.
Any advice or tips is much appreciated as I am a novice/intermediate with strength training.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Whoa Sento… You’re still going at this… You have the patience of… A very large stone.
My respect, even though I believe the situation to be hopeless.
Yeah, well unfortunately I let myself get drawn into an overly theoretical and technical discussion. I had hoped that the evidence that I provided would at least convince several others to open their eyes and observe the real world around them. Sadly I still have people arguing with me that the way that BB’ers have trained successfully for decades is not proven to build muscle most effectively.
Again, I’d love to see what would happen if the authors had to post pictures of their clients to prove the efficacy of their training methods. That right there would clear up a lot of misconceptions that seem to run rampant on this (and other) forums.[/quote]
It is unfortunate that the way BB’s have trained for years, you say, is not the same as they say they actually train. It is also not, for the most part, consistent with the available research. And also why the thousands of minions following your methods never achieve their goals.
It should tell you something that with thousands of guys training the same way and yet only a few really big guys or champions. I know you will just blame this fact on their motivation, etc. But hopefully some people reading this will know in their own experience that that is not the whole story and that maybe it’s the methodology.
But as you guys are going to do what you are going to do regardless of science, and outcomes, etc. So CC is right in that this conversation has gone on way to long.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Whoa Sento… You’re still going at this… You have the patience of… A very large stone.
My respect, even though I believe the situation to be hopeless.
Yeah, well unfortunately I let myself get drawn into an overly theoretical and technical discussion. I had hoped that the evidence that I provided would at least convince several others to open their eyes and observe the real world around them.
Sadly I still have people arguing with me that the way that BB’ers have trained successfully for decades is not proven to build muscle most effectively.
Again, I’d love to see what would happen if the authors had to post pictures of their clients to prove the efficacy of their training methods. That right there would clear up a lot of misconceptions that seem to run rampant on this (and other) forums.
It is unfortunate that the way BB’s have trained for years, you say, is not the same as they say they actually train. It is also not, for the most part, consistent with the available research. And also why the thousands of minions following your methods never achieve their goals.
It should tell you something that with thousands of guys training the same way and yet only a few really big guys or champions. I know you will just blame this fact on their motivation, etc. But hopefully some people reading this will know in their own experience that that is not the whole story and that maybe it’s the methodology.
But as you guys are going to do what you are going to do regardless of science, and outcomes, etc. So CC is right in that this conversation has gone on way to long.
[/quote]
Again, show me (us) some pictures/video footage of all the guys who have reached the same level of development (steroids or not) who used these methods that are supposedly in accordance with science. Until then, I’ll choose to follow those who actually have achieved this.
I have this idea for a new wheel…
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
I have this idea for a new wheel…[/quote]
You mean the one that self-inflates when punctured or the one that measures its own pressure and tells you when it’s low?
No I think he means the one that is octagonal and asymmetrical that isn’t able to transport things very well at all. But it looks really high tech! So a lot of people are using it nowadays.
Tee hee hee…
[quote]mr popular wrote:
No I think he means the one that is octagonal and asymmetrical that isn’t able to transport things very well at all. But it looks really high tech! So a lot of people are using it nowadays.[/quote]
No I think he means the wheels the race car drivers are using as they speed past him in his VW bus. As they speed past he yells out the window stating how turbo-charging doesn’t work and race car drivers from 20 years ago don’t use them either.
[quote]dankid wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
It was one sided because only one side really has any substantial real world evidence to back it up.
I disagree Sentoguy. There are plenty of athletes that use other methods that have great physiques. Also, steriods DO make a difference when comparing methods. They alter the rate of recovery, and amount of work that can be done in a workout.
That is why bb’ers use body part splits, and athletes are more likely to use TBT or upper/lower splits. I think the reason there isn’t a “superior method” is because its like comparing apples and oranges. Training based on fatigue and failure will work better for some, while training based on performance will work better for others.
It doesn’t have anything to do with the RE method being superior for growth, or lower reps being better for strength and functional hypertrophy. The point is, there are many variables, and as long as you understand them ANYTHING will work.
Theres a common sayiing I see, “everything works”, but “only for so long”. You can build endurance with lower reps, and you can build strength with highers reps. This thread is a clear example of some of the problems this field has. Most individuals pick one said and say that it is far superior, but if everything works, but only for so long, then you’d better be willing to use all methods.
I myself am an example of this. Beginner programs like 3x10 took me to a point, and then more strength based routines continued my progress. Now I need to focus more on endurance, but thats not to say I wont go back to 3x10 or a strength based routine in a short time.
I understand this is a bb’ing forum, and arguably T-Nation may or may not be geared toward bb’ers. We clearly need a forum for individuals that want to be big and strong, but not bb’ers.
[/quote]
Good post dankid.
People who do not understand these concepts continue doing the same thing over and over again and make little progress.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Good post dankid.
People who do not understand these concepts continue doing the same thing over and over again and make little progress.
[/quote]
Yeah, as opposed to all the mass monsters who do TBT and switch up their programs every 4 weeks. Oh wait…