I’d read it as a sign of appreciation, to which I add mine. Just reading your “perfect rep” article changed my training so much. This is something I love doing, so yes, I do get into this thread often 
hey coach
are you writing, or have u already written some programs down like I’BB where u’ll incorporate techniques like twitch reps? i’ve been using them until the end of february for quite a long time on some exercises, they do a good job, i somehow get the feeling people have already forgotten about it since IBB came out.
another thing, i just had the first week of the shoulder spec of IBB behind me, and today was the saturday session and i had this sharp elbow pain while doing those decline triceps extensions (no matter if with barbell or dumbells, no matter if 12kg or 25kg), have u ever encountered something like this before? any help?
happy easter!
[quote]padrinho wrote:
hey coach
are you writing, or have u already written some programs down like I’BB where u’ll incorporate techniques like twitch reps? i’ve been using them until the end of february for quite a long time on some exercises, they do a good job, i somehow get the feeling people have already forgotten about it since IBB came out.
another thing, i just had the first week of the shoulder spec of IBB behind me, and today was the saturday session and i had this sharp elbow pain while doing those decline triceps extensions (no matter if with barbell or dumbells, no matter if 12kg or 25kg), have u ever encountered something like this before? any help?
happy easter![/quote]
We have roughly 20 different lifting techniques and loading methods so far. The original IBB program only uses 4 of them. So yes, we have a lot more to present. But we want to make sure that the basics are mastered before we move on to more advanced stuff.
It would be cool if you guys make small introduction articles on thees methods, something like the perfect rep article.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
JANUARY 8TH
I find that the key to improving a lagging or stuck bench press is to improve overhead lifting strength.
I actually just realized that, despite plenty of experience showing that it was true. Here are three of those experiences:
- When I was playing football I used to train the bench press a lot (it was the lift I wanted to be strong at because it was tested at camp). Despite spending 2 (sometimes 3) days a week doing the bench press it was still a weak lift from me.
When I started to compete in olympic lifting I stopped training the bench as I was already tight in the shoulders and pectorals which made catching my snatches much harder.
I did however do tons of overhead work… push presses, military presses, split jerks, push jerks, overhead supports, snatches, overhead squats, etc.
When I stopped competing in olympic lifting I started to train on the bench again, and the first time I benched (after not having benched for 5 years) I destroyed my previous best and within 2 months I was lifting 75lbs more than ever before on that lift.
-
When we were developing the I, Bodybuilder program the first phase was a shoulder spec program, which included a lot of overhead work. During that time I reduced the amount of bench pressing work, to avoid overstressing the shoulders. After the phase was completed my bench had improved by 40lbs, without doing it more than once or twice in 4 weeks.
-
I recently decided to start olympic lifting again. I found that I lacked shoulder mobility and the capacity to hold weights overhead. So I decided to do a lot of overhead work. In part to gain more strength, but also to work on my range of motion. I did some form of overhead work (including, among others military presses, behind the neck press with a snatch grip for mobility, overhead support, overhead lunges, push presses, overhead squats, push jerks, etc.) and I cut off bench pressing and any chest work until my shoulder mobility was better.
When my shoulder mobility was back to where it needed to be I started bench pressing again, and a weight that was normally fairly hard felt like the bar was almost empty.
I decided to reduce my amount of overhead work since I reasoned that my mobility and strength was back, within 2 weeks my bench went down!
So to me it is fairly obvious that if you want your bench to go up, instead of doing tons of bench work… do tons of overhead work![/quote]
Thanks for the advice. Though I’m relatively new to the lifting thing I’ve found that as I’ve used the Anaconda Protocol and the various phases of I, Bodybuilder it’s helped tremendously.
All the phases seem to have helped my bench. I did have one question though.
On the bench from pins I’m doing significantly more than on flat bench. As I said before I started lifting in January and was doing maybe 225. I’m now doing 315 for sets of 3 (got 325 2x the other day); my press from pins is at 445. Is that difference typical? I also find on the floor press that I’m getting close to same weight as regular bench is that typical?
Thanks in advance for the reply.
[quote]elliot15 wrote:On the bench from pins I’m doing significantly more than on flat bench. As I said before I started lifting in January and was doing maybe 225. I’m now doing 315 for sets of 3 (got 325 2x the other day); my press from pins is at 445. Is that difference typical? I also find on the floor press that I’m getting close to same weight as regular bench is that typical?
Thanks in advance for the reply.
[/quote]
There is no such thing as ‘‘typical’’. Each individual is different… different levers (limb and torso length), muscle balance, elastic vs. muscular dominance.
You might either be VERY strong but lack explosiveness OR (more likely) you are starting the bar to high on the bench press from pins compared to your limb length. Do you have short arms? If so you will need to start the bar closer to the chest.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]elliot15 wrote:On the bench from pins I’m doing significantly more than on flat bench. As I said before I started lifting in January and was doing maybe 225. I’m now doing 315 for sets of 3 (got 325 2x the other day); my press from pins is at 445. Is that difference typical? I also find on the floor press that I’m getting close to same weight as regular bench is that typical?
Thanks in advance for the reply.
[/quote]
There is no such thing as ‘‘typical’’. Each individual is different… different levers (limb and torso length), muscle balance, elastic vs. muscular dominance.
You might either be VERY strong but lack explosiveness OR (more likely) you are starting the bar to high on the bench press from pins compared to your limb length. Do you have short arms? If so you will need to start the bar closer to the chest.[/quote]
Thanks for the reply. From pins I start with bar about 3-5" above chest. I have really long arms - 37 sleeve. Regarding explosiveness, the first rep from pins usually takes some work but once I get it up once it’s no problem on the remaining reps.
Am I just a mess or what?
[quote]elliot15 wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]elliot15 wrote:On the bench from pins I’m doing significantly more than on flat bench. As I said before I started lifting in January and was doing maybe 225. I’m now doing 315 for sets of 3 (got 325 2x the other day); my press from pins is at 445. Is that difference typical? I also find on the floor press that I’m getting close to same weight as regular bench is that typical?
Thanks in advance for the reply.
[/quote]
There is no such thing as ‘‘typical’’. Each individual is different… different levers (limb and torso length), muscle balance, elastic vs. muscular dominance.
You might either be VERY strong but lack explosiveness OR (more likely) you are starting the bar to high on the bench press from pins compared to your limb length. Do you have short arms? If so you will need to start the bar closer to the chest.[/quote]
Thanks for the reply. From pins I start with bar about 3-5" above chest. I have really long arms - 37 sleeve. Regarding explosiveness, the first rep from pins usually takes some work but once I get it up once it’s no problem on the remaining reps.
Am I just a mess or what?
[/quote]
Not really. It’s a tough call… I would have to see you lift and analyze your strength and weaknesses. It is possible that your chest or delts are very weak in proportion, which makes your full bench much lower than your pin press.
That having been said, I have seen all kind of people…
- Those who are the same strength level on full lifts and bench from pins <
- Those who are much stronger from pins
- Those who are stronger on the full bench
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]elliot15 wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]elliot15 wrote:On the bench from pins I’m doing significantly more than on flat bench. As I said before I started lifting in January and was doing maybe 225. I’m now doing 315 for sets of 3 (got 325 2x the other day); my press from pins is at 445. Is that difference typical? I also find on the floor press that I’m getting close to same weight as regular bench is that typical?
Thanks in advance for the reply.
[/quote]
There is no such thing as ‘‘typical’’. Each individual is different… different levers (limb and torso length), muscle balance, elastic vs. muscular dominance.
You might either be VERY strong but lack explosiveness OR (more likely) you are starting the bar to high on the bench press from pins compared to your limb length. Do you have short arms? If so you will need to start the bar closer to the chest.[/quote]
Thanks for the reply. From pins I start with bar about 3-5" above chest. I have really long arms - 37 sleeve. Regarding explosiveness, the first rep from pins usually takes some work but once I get it up once it’s no problem on the remaining reps.
Am I just a mess or what?
[/quote]
Not really. It’s a tough call… I would have to see you lift and analyze your strength and weaknesses. It is possible that your chest or delts are very weak in proportion, which makes your full bench much lower than your pin press.
That having been said, I have seen all kind of people…
- Those who are the same strength level on full lifts and bench from pins <
- Those who are much stronger from pins
- Those who are stronger on the full bench
[/quote]
Thanks for the reply.
I definitely weak in the shoulders in general. Having said that I’ll take the good with the bad; 3 months ago I was barely able to get 225 for 1, and today I’m getting 315 for multiple sets of 3. And I’ve seen as the bench from pins go up my bench has gone up. Clearly the program is working so I’m not going to get over analytical. I’ll just keep at it!
Thanks again!
CT,
I was wondering how your “hierarchy of explosiveness” works as far as training? The one that roughly goes 1) Bilateral bounding 2) Unilateral bounding 3) Perfect Rep 4) True Plyos 5) Ballistic weight exercises 6) O-lifting.
You mentioned that you typically need to get good at the lower levels before you move on. What happens to the lower level training once you master it? If you’ve mastered the Perfect Rep, do you stop doing the explosive bounding? Are the lower levels still useful?
Slight tangent - I’ve always instinctually followed the first 3 rungs of the ladder. Whenever I got deconditioned, I ALWAYS started with sprints and basic bodyweight jumping before moving on to serious weights.
CT-
What do you think about German Volume Training and DoggCrapp? Both are the opposite of what you advocate (e.g. slow negative, GVT using 60% 1RM, infrequent training, etc.), but guys have been reporting great success with both for a solid decade now. Is the volume in GVT just so extreme that, at least for short periods, hypertrophy can’t help but occur? DC is very slightly more similar in the use of rest-pause and explosive concentrics, but even then the slow negatives and infrequent training look the opposite of what you advocate. But dudes get huge by following it to the letter.
It goes back to what you like to say – theory (explosive lifts should be more effective for hypertrophy) v. practice (if you don’t care about strength, enough people have reported GVT’s effectiveness, at least in the short term, that it’s hard to dismiss offhand). Could concepts from either – slow negatives, extreme stretching – be incorporated into an HTH-oriented system without compromising its integrity?
Oh, and I might as well ask – do you see any validity in DC’s advocacy of extreme stretching?
Thanks!
[quote]boomerlu wrote:
CT,
I was wondering how your “hierarchy of explosiveness” works as far as training? The one that roughly goes 1) Bilateral bounding 2) Unilateral bounding 3) Perfect Rep 4) True Plyos 5) Ballistic weight exercises 6) O-lifting.
You mentioned that you typically need to get good at the lower levels before you move on. What happens to the lower level training once you master it? If you’ve mastered the Perfect Rep, do you stop doing the explosive bounding? Are the lower levels still useful?
Slight tangent - I’ve always instinctually followed the first 3 rungs of the ladder. Whenever I got deconditioned, I ALWAYS started with sprints and basic bodyweight jumping before moving on to serious weights.[/quote]
When you are good at higher level exercises you reduce, but not phase out completely level 1 and 2 exercises. I use them mostly as activation tools. But any level 3,4,5 and 6 exercises can be used if you have mastered them.
[quote]IronTherapy wrote:
CT-
What do you think about German Volume Training and DoggCrapp? Both are the opposite of what you advocate (e.g. slow negative, GVT using 60% 1RM, infrequent training, etc.), but guys have been reporting great success with both for a solid decade now. Is the volume in GVT just so extreme that, at least for short periods, hypertrophy can’t help but occur? DC is very slightly more similar in the use of rest-pause and explosive concentrics, but even then the slow negatives and infrequent training look the opposite of what you advocate. But dudes get huge by following it to the letter.
It goes back to what you like to say – theory (explosive lifts should be more effective for hypertrophy) v. practice (if you don’t care about strength, enough people have reported GVT’s effectiveness, at least in the short term, that it’s hard to dismiss offhand). Could concepts from either – slow negatives, extreme stretching – be incorporated into an HTH-oriented system without compromising its integrity?
Oh, and I might as well ask – do you see any validity in DC’s advocacy of extreme stretching?
Thanks![/quote]
-
I never critique or give my opinion on other coach’s methods. They have their theory and experience and I have mine.
-
I prefer to look at common elements between a different approach and mine. Oftentimes, these common elements are the real reason why all different programs can be successful. For example GVT use a lot of sets of a few exercises, a principle I agree with. ALSO GVT is quite old, even coach Poliquin who popularized it is now recommending doing the 10 sets with lower reps and an explosive concentric (go on his website and read his recent article on GVT).
Here it is:
http://www.charlespoliquin.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article.aspx?ID=261
Its the same one published here:
Been doing it for a while; Workout 2 - day 2 (legs) was 2 days ago, and it was perhaps the most intense session I’ve had in a Gym… ever.
BUT, It would not have been such a satisfying day, had I not read and trained 4 months now, on the ‘perfect rep’ (and other elements of IBB), which taught me a Lot (with still a lot to learn and train) on the quality of my reps.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
-
I never critique or give my opinion on other coach’s methods. They have their theory and experience and I have mine.
-
I prefer to look at common elements between a different approach and mine. Oftentimes, these common elements are the real reason why all different programs can be successful. For example GVT use a lot of sets of a few exercises, a principle I agree with. ALSO GVT is quite old, even coach Poliquin who popularized it is now recommending doing the 10 sets with lower reps and an explosive concentric (go on his website and read his recent article on GVT).[/quote]
Fair enough – sorry, didn’t mean to back you into potentially compromising territory. I’m just fascinating by the fact that there can be three systems predicated on some very different ideas about what makes muscle grow – HTH/Perfect Rep, rest pause/low volume with slow negatives (DC), high volume with slow negatives and explosive concentric (GVT) – yet all three seem to do great things for those who follow them.
Different genes/needs of lifters? (E.g. someone with a slow metabolism, like yours truly, might have trouble on a low volume program?) Or a case of “the best program is the one you’re not currently on”?
The answer, for me personally, seems pretty clear-cut – dedicate a good amount of time to each one in succession and follow it exactly as prescribed, then move on to the next after a deload. Consider, compare, and move on from there. I can speculate all day about how one or another will or won’t help me, but curiosity will kill me until I actually give each one a shot.
[quote]IronTherapy wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
-
I never critique or give my opinion on other coach’s methods. They have their theory and experience and I have mine.
-
I prefer to look at common elements between a different approach and mine. Oftentimes, these common elements are the real reason why all different programs can be successful. For example GVT use a lot of sets of a few exercises, a principle I agree with. ALSO GVT is quite old, even coach Poliquin who popularized it is now recommending doing the 10 sets with lower reps and an explosive concentric (go on his website and read his recent article on GVT).[/quote]
Fair enough – sorry, didn’t mean to back you into potentially compromising territory. I’m just fascinating by the fact that there can be three systems predicated on some very different ideas about what makes muscle grow – HTH/Perfect Rep, rest pause/low volume with slow negatives (DC), high volume with slow negatives and explosive concentric (GVT) – yet all three seem to do great things for those who follow them.
Different genes/needs of lifters? (E.g. someone with a slow metabolism, like yours truly, might have trouble on a low volume program?) Or a case of “the best program is the one you’re not currently on”?
The answer, for me personally, seems pretty clear-cut – dedicate a good amount of time to each one in succession and follow it exactly as prescribed, then move on to the next after a deload. Consider, compare, and move on from there. I can speculate all day about how one or another will or won’t help me, but curiosity will kill me until I actually give each one a shot.[/quote]
It is fairly simple to understand why very different training approaches can be effective.
What makes a muscle grow is fairly simple to understand… you must ask your muscles to perform work approaching the limit of their capacity.
Different programs accomplish this different ways.
A high volume approach does it with accumulated fatigue… working toward the body’s limit of volume tolerance.
A density/beyond failure approach like DC and Trevor Smith’s method do it by creating maximum fatigue in one set… it has the same kind of impact as high volume work, but instead of requiring a lot of sets to work toward the body’s limit for work tolerance, it does so by creating a ton of fatigue in one extended set.
Powerlifting-type programs make muscle grow by doing plenty of work with loads approaching the body’s limit for tension/force production. So instead of working toward your work tolerance limit, it work towards your tension tolerance limit.
All three approaches work and work well. The issue is only one of fatigue (especially neural fatigue) management.
A high volume approach can cause metabolic fatigue as well as neural fatigue (lactic acid accumulation in the muscle can lead to peripheral neural fatigue which leads to CNS fatigue).
A “failure” approach causes much of the same fatigue via lactic acid accumulation but to a much more pronounced degree, which is why it is impossible to perform a lot of sets with this approach.
A powerlifting-type approach can cause a lot of neural fatigue too because heavier weights tend to put more stress on the CNS.
Those who fail to have results are those who suck at fatigue management.
That having been said, I believe that the more work close to your limit you can perform WITHOUT EXCEEDING YOUR CAPACITY TO RECOVER the more you’ll progress. Which is why I recommend lower reps without grinding. This allows one to do a lot more high-force sets without burning out.
Hey Thibs,
Sorry if youve already answered this, but I was wondering what the advantages are of training in a circuit fashion like in the I,BODYBUIDER program, thanks.
[quote]XXLSXX wrote:
Hey Thibs,
Sorry if youve already answered this, but I was wondering what the advantages are of training in a circuit fashion like in the I,BODYBUIDER program, thanks.[/quote]
More overall work done in less time… better results when it comes to body composition, increases in work capacity, better hormonal response to training.
I have just been reading back through this epic thread! And i have just been reminded of a problem i have, i am reasonable explosive in most movements apart from bench, ive got quicker since incorporating the perfect rep, but how would i go about setting up a session to improve speed?
[quote]captaincalvert wrote:
My reasons for looking into it is simply that I am a professional trainer, though sadly not half as knowledgable as Thibs. Hopefully I’ll become that good some day. Anyway, people at my gym ask me a lot of questions, and I like to give them answers that are detailed and science based. I acknowledge the high probability of CNS fatigue as a real phenomenon, but it’s always nice to be able to explain how it happens, why it happens, and how we came to know that it happens.
If no research is done there is also the off chance that the fatigue phenomenon is related to something other than the CNS. That’s the nature of science. We’re often convinced that something must be right. Then new data comes to light, and we have to start all over again. I’m not saying it’s the case here, but the possibility can’t be ruled out.[/quote]
I just wanted to comment on this thought as a scientist myself. I did my PhD research in cognitive neuroscience at a top university in the field known for its rigorous mathematical modeling. My own research was in motor control, motor learning, and skill acquisition.
I do not care whether “CNS fatigue” is the absolutely true explanation for the phenomenon. If your goal is to optimize training results, it doesn’t really matter what it is. It is WHATEVER is responsible for the diminished output between training sessions. I am not familiar with exercise research, but I assume that research shows the time course of replenishing fuel and clearing metabolic waste is faster than the total recovery time. Therefore, something else must require additional time to recover. And the only other thing known to be involved is neural transmission.
However, say that someday, some new peripheral mechanism no one had ever imagined is discovered that is responsible for the delay in recovery. In the meantime, the delay exists and needs to be managed. Who cares if a trainer is “wrong” about what causes the delay in recovery, as long as his strategy for speeding recovery empirically works?
As a scientist, I’d love to know exactly how everything in the body and brain works. But as a trainee, I only care THAT something works.