Saving Your CNS While Going to Failure?

[quote]Sexxxton wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

All of the “low-volume” guys–Dorian Yates, Trevor Smith, Mike Mentzer, Arthur Jones, all of them!–had a way with words regarding this subject. All of the HIT and low-volume squad speak (or spoke) about how insane their training intensity is and that no human being can train with more than one working set employing it when the fact is that all of these people sure do/did a great deal of “working warm-up” sets that DO have effects on strength and size and it’s the way MOST of the successful strength trainees train! Most or no advanced guys use straight sets, making this “one-set” phenomenon a matter of semantics and word-weaving!

Look at Yates’ training video or his books. He employed about 2 or 3 warmup sets and 2 or 3 “working warmup” sets for each first exercise of a workout, and 1 to 3 working warmup sets for subsequent exercises. That DOES provide a significant amount of volume to a workout. [/quote]

Yup, and a lot of the guys in Mentzer’s day observed that Mike did as many sets as them, merely calling them ‘warmups’, supposedly short of ‘failure’.
[/quote]

Exactly!

I just say leave the “scientific speak” to the scientists. Were talking about lifting a heavy object, sleeping and eating food for fucks sake. Putting a high level of effort into all those things will take care of the rest.

CNS this, Failure that. WTF?! Who cares. Lift as heavy as possible, as fast as you can (whether it goes up fast or not is irrelevant), eat something and pass out.

People before this stuff came out made ‘extreme’ gains through effort and intensity. Why the need for anything more complicated than that? Follow what the majority of the big, well-developed people on these boards do or have done, and continue on your way to hugeness.

/thread

NB: mr popular - setting people straight since November 2005 - ps. i love you (no ghey)

[quote]pro-a-ggression wrote:
I just say leave the “scientific speak” to the scientists. Were talking about lifting a heavy object, sleeping and eating food for fucks sake. Putting a high level of effort into all those things will take care of the rest.

CNS this, Failure that. WTF?! Who cares. Lift as heavy as possible, as fast as you can (whether it goes up fast or not is irrelevant), eat something and pass out.

People before this stuff came out made ‘extreme’ gains through effort and intensity. Why the need for anything more complicated than that? Follow what the majority of the big, well-developed people on these boards do or have done, and continue on your way to hugeness.

/thread

NB: mr popular - setting people straight since November 2005 - ps. i love you (no ghey)[/quote]

Right!

I agree 100% about the internship-type training, learning from some one who actually looks like he lifts and has many years of serious lifting under his belt can open up some eyes and rid people of naive thinking. If some of the guys in my powerhouse gym , some who have been training seriously for DECADES, saw some of the stuff I see on here. They would either laugh their asses off or shake their heads in disbelief.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
A part of the problem is that BB’ing is something that is far more suited to internship-type learning, so to speak, rather than reading-learning.

For example, if I understand Professor X’s posts correctly, he didn’t find out from books how to train. There were some big guys in his gym and he learned to train how they did.

I am sure he supplemented this also with knowledge acquired from reading, but the backbone and gold standard was what was working in the gyms for the guys who had gotten big and were getting bigger.

These days, going into the typical gym and seeing what the various yahoos are doing isn’t going to do much good in most cases.

So I can readily understand seeking the written word to fill the gap.

Problem is, as Bricknyce says, most of it is full of shit. And some of it does have validity if you know how to filter through the shit, but you have to know where the shit is in the first place to be able to filter through it, so that doesn’t help much when starting out.

I will say however that CT’s writings are very clear and I don’t think are going to lead anyone astray. It also seems to me that each of the successful powerlifters that writes on the subject gives out good information that is clear, and while some regards of it are not optimized for bb’ing there are valid things to learn from what they have to say. Just employ some judgment and ask “Are successful bb’ers also doing this?” and if the answer is no and your goal is bb’ing, then you don’t need to do that.[/quote]

I read quite a bit about bodybuilding; the history of it as well as the philosophies of many of those earlier guys in the 60’s up through the 80’s…but this was AFTER I had put forth the effort in the gym following a very basic lifting skeleton and already understood how to make my own muscles grow. There was no “splits vs full body” bullshit. Guys who got really big all pretty much trained the same…so I did what they did and it worked since I was beginning to eat more and I lifted with the same intensity they did.

I agree that newbies today may not be able to even find really big lifters in their gyms and more of these people are clueless…but that isn’t all that is holding them back. many of these guys over the last few years seemed to actually think those who had seen more progress were the ones you DON’T listen to. They get told by gurus that the big bodybuilders all got there by “genetics/drugs” so you shouldn’t listen to anyone really big…only listen to the small people who don’t grow much because they somehow worked harder.

Many of these dudes defeat themselves with such bullshit logic.

On top of that, I just had a debate with a guy in another thread who called Bonez out for being clueless because he misspelled the word “ridiculous”…which in itself is ridiculous and implies some of these people are dumb enough to avoid advice from successful lifters unless it sounds like a physics lecture.

I get the impression people in general just aren’t as “superintelligent” as they think they are.

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I agree. The misunderstanding you had is:

  1. Propagated by any number of authors, though certainly not all (not CT for example) and

  2. Propagated by any number of lifters including who absolutely don’t do what they are saying, or if one wants to claim they are doing they, they’re doing so only in a Newspeak sense where “failure” doesn’t involve any reps he failed to complete the lifts on, but only successful reps.

It isn’t just incredibly easy to be misled by this, it’s rather hard not to be, unless already being aware that this nonsense use of words goes on all the time and simply cannot be stamped out.[/quote]

Exactly, Bill. And I’m very fond of you addressing this whole “intensity-failure-badass” MYTHOLOGY going on.

All of the “low-volume” guys–Dorian Yates, Trevor Smith, Mike Mentzer, Arthur Jones, all of them!–had a way with words regarding this subject. All of the HIT and low-volume squad speak (or spoke) about how insane their training intensity is and that no human being can train with more than one working set employing it when the fact is that all of these people sure do/did a great deal of “working warm-up” sets that DO have effects on strength and size and it’s the way MOST of the successful strength trainees train! Most or no advanced guys use straight sets, making this “one-set” phenomenon a matter of semantics and word-weaving!

Look at Yates’ training video or his books. He employed about 2 or 3 warmup sets and 2 or 3 “working warmup” sets for each first exercise of a workout, and 1 to 3 working warmup sets for subsequent exercises. That DOES provide a significant amount of volume to a workout. [/quote]

Perfectly said Brick!

[quote]kjmont wrote:
…I now get that there is no need for constant failure on every set to stimulate hypertrophy…[/quote]

Correct.

Although, you do still have to make it as intense as possible; don’t underestimate what you can do. This is no excuse for an easy time in the gym lol. As you become stronger and your ability to push harder/focus increases, you may be surprised at how much you were holding back previously.

“Saving the nervous” system tends to become more important when you’re doing big compound movements. The bigger the exercise, the more “drain” it gives you. Thus, you can get away with pushing harder (e.g. failure or near on multiple sets) on isolation exercises for example. I believe this is where many people are biased as regards intensity; the more people specialise in exercises/body parts, the more important intensity becomes. Isolation exercises often enable/require you to push the muscle to the limit much more (with lessor systematic fatigue).

Just don’t limit your gains in strength/muscle by not eating enough as MOST newbies do. If you’re lifts are stalling, or you’re feeling systematically fatigued…make sure your diet is in check before modifying your training.

[quote]kjmont wrote:

None of this has gotten under my skin, but the only problem that this caused is that people were wasting time questioning my intelligence rather than to help me with my goal which was to get advice from people with different perspectives so I can better my training. [/quote]

I don’t think the problem is your intelligence; I think the problem is your inability to step back and understand completely why you would want to train in a given way.

If you personally can make progress without going to failure multiple times per session, then why are you doing it? All your other problems like frying your chicken noodle soup or whatever, magically disappear when you apply a little common sense to the situation.

If something doesn’t make 100% perfect sense to me, I won’t do it: my training is dictated by what I need to do, not by what I want to do - there’s a huge difference. I’m personally far more impressed by someone who expresses their thoughts and defines their goals with clarity and simplicity than by someone who can “upgrade” perfectly sound, time-tested programs in two shakes of a cat’s tail, but fails to recognize the real issues in their training - you know, the ones that are responsible for genuine, long-term progress.

It doesn’t mean these people aren’t intelligent (not to say they all are, though). It does mean that their priorities are totally out of whack.

[quote]Carlitosway wrote:
I agree 100% about the internship-type training, learning from some one who actually looks like he lifts and has many years of serious lifting under his belt can open up some eyes and rid people of naive thinking. If some of the guys in my powerhouse gym , some who have been training seriously for DECADES, saw some of the stuff I see on here. They would either laugh their asses off or shake their heads in disbelief.[/quote]

turtles?

[quote]ucallthatbass wrote:
Cliffnotes:

See weight, lift weight fast, repeat.

When weight if lifted slower, stop set.

eat, eat, eat.[/quote]

Lifting weights “fast” and then stopping the set once they start to slow down?

People actually do this?

Obviously you want to accelerate the positive on most of your exercises (not all), but all of the progress I have ever made in gaining strength has been through “grinding” up more reps than I could previously do.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

On top of that, I just had a debate with a guy in another thread who called Bonez out for being clueless because he misspelled the word “ridiculous”…which in itself is ridiculous and implies some of these people are dumb enough to avoid advice from successful lifters unless it sounds like a physics lecture.

I get the impression people in general just aren’t as “superintelligent” as they think they are.[/quote]

You call one post a debate? That I have seen, Bonez never actually offers much in the way of advice. Its amazing how much you read into ONE post. I have been around here a long time and most of what I do in the gym is adapted from what I have read in your own Professor X: A Request Thread, Modok, and C_C. I am listening to big guys, and big guys only, but I do take offense to people being douche bags just for the sake of being douche bags. I also don’t listen to the pseudo-scientists like Dankid or Trextacy. Yet, you are trying to lump me into the same category with these guys when I do not agree with them, have never pretended to agree with them, have never-quotes a study or even an article on this website, and rarely offer-advice that I am not yet qualified to give.

Generally, I will ONLY offer advice on fatloss, as I have lost 90 lbs of fat. That said, I manage to give out this advice sparingly and without insulting the person I am giving it to.

I go to the gym and work my ass off. I read a lot on here, and rarely post because I do not have much to offer that has not been said a thousand times.

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

How the hell do some of you expect to have the nuts to bench press 400+lbs if “aggressive toned” posts cause this much of a problem for you?[/quote]

That’s right. As people read, I apologized in some of my recent posts for my sometimes sarcastic and hostile tone. The reason why I became so hot-headed on here is because of people who want others to work–provide online training and nutrition counseling, scour hundreds of articles–for free!

[/quote]

I think it makes you a big person for admitting that you were wrong, but to the first part of this quote: Isn’t that the point of the forum? To give bodybuilding advice to people who want to look and train like bodybuilders? The whole point is to share ideads, thoughts, about bodybuilding training, right? I mean, if a post is overly needy then I understand your point but it would be more constructive just not to post. However, it seems like people who have genuine questions are attacked radically for simply daring to seek advice.

On reflection, I think it’s bizarre that someone could look at I, Bodybuilder - a program specifically designed to manage fatigue, and think it would be a good idea to throw in multiple reps to failure and then worry about how it would affect their CNS…

It seems like people are almost embarrassed to start at the beginning. Not trying to flame you here OP, but you are stuck in a proverbial rut of your own making.

Really not bizarre, what with all the authors and various lifters beating their chests and shouting that only at “failure” is muscle growth achieved.

So, anyone being exposed to that could very reasonably read the I, Bodybuilder program and be convinced that to really work, it needs to have “failure” added in all over the place (or at all, for that matter.)

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Really not bizarre, what with all the authors and various lifters beating their chests and shouting that only at “failure” is muscle growth achieved.

So, anyone being exposed to that could very reasonably read the I, Bodybuilder program and be convinced that to really work, it needs to have “failure” added in all over the place (or at all, for that matter.)[/quote]

Exactly. The HIT mantra is easily memorized by now.

You also have to add in shit like this:

“Dorian told da photographas dat he trained like such a beast dat he couldn’t even stand up anymore! So he told dem, ‘Cum back tomorra!’”
“Once a ‘growth signal’ is sent to the muscle, there’s no point in doing another set.”
“Arthur Jones had Sergio do such an intense circuit that the big oaf was left vomiting on the floor and lifeless for hours.”
“HIT trainees train with an intensity that might take weeks to recover from.”

I particularly like the last one. I’ve gone to failure with respectable poundage before and managed to get through the rest of my day without a visit to the emergency room. I might go to near-failure today on several exercises and I don’t see such a visit as imminent in my schedule today either.

Ellington Darden likes the copy and paste button.

I meant copy and paste function.

[quote]GuerillaZen wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

On top of that, I just had a debate with a guy in another thread who called Bonez out for being clueless because he misspelled the word “ridiculous”…which in itself is ridiculous and implies some of these people are dumb enough to avoid advice from successful lifters unless it sounds like a physics lecture.

I get the impression people in general just aren’t as “superintelligent” as they think they are.[/quote]

You call one post a debate? That I have seen, Bonez never actually offers much in the way of advice. Its amazing how much you read into ONE post. I have been around here a long time and most of what I do in the gym is adapted from what I have read in your own Professor X: A Request Thread, Modok, and C_C. I am listening to big guys, and big guys only, but I do take offense to people being douche bags just for the sake of being douche bags. I also don’t listen to the pseudo-scientists like Dankid or Trextacy. Yet, you are trying to lump me into the same category with these guys when I do not agree with them, have never pretended to agree with them, have never-quotes a study or even an article on this website, and rarely offer-advice that I am not yet qualified to give.

Generally, I will ONLY offer advice on fatloss, as I have lost 90 lbs of fat. That said, I manage to give out this advice sparingly and without insulting the person I am giving it to.

I go to the gym and work my ass off. I read a lot on here, and rarely post because I do not have much to offer that has not been said a thousand times.

[/quote]

Are you that big of a pussy that you have to call me out indirectly? I didn’t even know that post you made about a spelling error was about me.

And now my screen name is popping up in another one of your posts. And the post isn’t even directed to me. Get a life dude.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Really not bizarre, what with all the authors and various lifters beating their chests and shouting that only at “failure” is muscle growth achieved.

So, anyone being exposed to that could very reasonably read the I, Bodybuilder program and be convinced that to really work, it needs to have “failure” added in all over the place (or at all, for that matter.)[/quote]

And yet, to get to that point, they would have to have either not read, ignored or misunderstood all the material CT wrote on how to execute ‘the perfect rep’ - a large portion of which explains in detail why failure is not necessary…that’s the part that really set my head spinning…

[quote]mr popular wrote:

[quote]ucallthatbass wrote:
Cliffnotes:

See weight, lift weight fast, repeat.

When weight if lifted slower, stop set.

eat, eat, eat.[/quote]

Lifting weights “fast” and then stopping the set once they start to slow down?

People actually do this?

Obviously you want to accelerate the positive on most of your exercises (not all), but all of the progress I have ever made in gaining strength has been through “grinding” up more reps than I could previously do.[/quote]

Same here. I’m not stopping a set just because the weight slows down.

So, let me ask this: Am I training wrong?

Last night was my ‘bench/chest’ night. 3 exercises: BB Bench, CGBP (to 1/2 foam), and incline DB press.

I did 3 sets of regular bench (not counting a couple warmup sets). The last rep of the last set, my spotter put fingers under the bar for the last 6" of the rep or so after letting me hang there motionless for a couple seconds. In other words, a grinder. The couple/few reps leading up to that were most definitely ‘slower’.

Next was CGBP. My heaviest set, again, spotter needed to complete the rep or I would have been pinned. Last set after my ‘heaviest’ set, I wanted to just crank out reps. I got 15 and on the last one, I couldn’t move it off my chest. Complete and utter fail. The couple/few reps leading up to that were most definitely ‘slower’.

Lastly, 3 sets of incline db presses, the last rep of the last set needing a spot or I would have failed.

So, in all, 3 (finger) spots needed on 3 exercises, after slowing down toward the end, and an additional ‘rep out’ to complete and utter fail (thought I could get the last one).

This is somewhat typical (if I have a spotter) for me the past few years and I have been progressing in weights and growing. I’m eating for growth.

So----Am I training wrong?