This Answers Everything

[goochadamg]

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
Yes and no. Boyce says it himself - you have to gain a strength base before any of this applies. Seriously, the times I’ve seen beginners focusing on MMC while squatting 95…[/quote]

I suggest you re-read, and sit on it for a moment.

And whats wrong with focusing on a 95lbs squat? I use 95lbs on the squat for 80% of my working sets.[/quote]

Okay, well, maybe I misunderstood your initial point then, if you’re suggesting beginners shouldn’t focus on increasing their squat before repping out at 95 lbs.

My friend who had never lifted before in his life went from an 85x5 squat to a 185x5 squat in one month after I put him on Starting Strength. Should he start repping 95 lbs? Or work his way toward 315x5 (at least) and THEN worry about the techniques described in this article?

Seriously, you squat 95lbs for 80% of your work sets? Are you doing 50-rep sets? Even at 50 reps, wouldn’t a heavier weight be better?[/quote]

I rarely rep above 8 reps.

My sets are usually 1 - 6 reps, focused very much on TUT, ROM, pauses, etc
As you might imagine, I do a ton of sets. And as you can also imagine, I get confused looks.

[/quote]

Care to post a pictures of your legs?

[Destrength]

[quote]Reed wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
Dont listen to anything Jarvan says. Ill never forget the thread from a year ago where he insisted I do the exact same thing with German Volume Training - use 95lb. This was a little under a year ago too.

[/quote]

10x10 on squats with 95lbs is pretty sad unless a beginner in which case I would ask him why? So with this Jarvan please post a pic or two of your legs so we can see who we are debating with.[/quote]
It’s pretty sad unless they are a small beginner woman.

[Reed]

[quote]Destrength wrote:

[quote]Reed wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
Dont listen to anything Jarvan says. Ill never forget the thread from a year ago where he insisted I do the exact same thing with German Volume Training - use 95lb. This was a little under a year ago too.

[/quote]

10x10 on squats with 95lbs is pretty sad unless a beginner in which case I would ask him why? So with this Jarvan please post a pic or two of your legs so we can see who we are debating with.[/quote]
It’s pretty sad unless they are a small beginner woman.[/quote]

Fair enough lol

[Yogi1]

Kind of a dumb thread, as it obviously doesn’t “answer everything” but making fun of Jarvan’s shitty squat’s a bit harsh. We all had to start somewhere.

However, I think it’s fair to say that getting your squat numbers respectable will do more than squatting 6oz and focussing on the MMC or whatever.

I do think that arbitrarily saying people need to hit certain strength base before they’re allowed to do bodybuilder stuff is all kinds of wrong though.

EDIT: Just noticed Jarvan’s been a member here since 2011. Dude, fix your squat. 95lbs? Jesus.

[dagill2]

While we wait for Jarvan to post so we can all stroke our egos by shitting on him, anyone care to read the article and comment?

[goochadamg]

[quote]dagill2 wrote:
While we wait for Jarvan to post so we can all stroke our egos by shitting on him, anyone care to read the article and comment?[/quote]

The article says the same old shit. It’s not interesting, but it’s not wrong.

[nighthawkz]

For the sake of being fair - Jarvan said he does BACK OFF sets with 95. I think he recently said his max is 315.

[Yogi1]

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
For the sake of being fair - Jarvan said he does BACK OFF sets with 95. I think he recently said his max is 315.[/quote]

I missed the bit about the BACK OFF (why the caps?) sets. I only saw where he said 80% of his work sets are done with 95lbs and he does sets of 1-6 reps.

[dt79]

[quote]craze9 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
For the sake of discussion, IMO the part about needing a “strength base” is false. What is really needed is progression , and in the case of a beginner, quantifiable progression while he gains experience, hence the focus on numbers. Strength will come with muscle growth.[/quote]

I agree that the important thing is progression, and there are different ways of measuring progress. Not sure I agree with the last sentence though, especially for beginners.

Some people (probably MOST people, who are fully untrained) simply aren’t strong enough to do enough work (in terms of intensity / volume) to damage the muscle fibers when they first start lifting. For these people, neural adaptation has to occur before hypertrophy. Which is why a lot of beginners don’t see any gains in the first couple months, and then start growing. [/quote]

Improved neural efficiency simply lets you fire more motor units at a given time, which is why beginners can rep 90% of their maxes for more than 5 reps.

A beginner can also handle more volume because of this. Going to muscular failure in a moderate rep range for multiple sets will eventually activate and fatigue enough muscle fibers to induce growth regardless of the initial load, which of course must increase over time. It is all part of the body’s survival mechanism.

Your observation of beginners only growing after a few months (and I understand this is also what Thibaudeau has written about in the past) is in direct contrast to mine. Perhaps due to a difference in training methods?

Young male athletes may not experience this (I didn’t experience it myself – I put on 25 lbs in my first 3 months) but untrained people do. My friend is going through it right now – complaining about how his arms haven’t gotten bigger yet, but his upper body strength is terrible (can’t do a single pullup, or dips, etc). He needs to get stronger before he will grow, not the other way around.

Maybe your friend needs to eat more, because if he really is eating in a caloric excess, I would expect to at least see fat gain if not muscle mass.

[nighthawkz]

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
For the sake of being fair - Jarvan said he does BACK OFF sets with 95. I think he recently said his max is 315.[/quote]

I missed the bit about the BACK OFF (why the caps?) sets. I only saw where he said 80% of his work sets are done with 95lbs and he does sets of 1-6 reps.

[/quote]

The caps were for emphasis. I would have used italics instead I don’t think there’s a way to do them here. It was definitely not meant as an internet shout.

Jarvan likes to train with super high frequency and volume. We don’t always agree but I think the 95lb squats may make some kind of sense in this context. He didn’t call them back off sets but made it very clear that 95 isn’t even a fraction of what he could lift if he wanted to. I don’t necessarily agree with him though.

[MickyGee]

It depends on the situation. Certainly some people focus too much on strength progression and do not adequately target the muscle. A lot of people focus too much on these bodybuilding techniques, however, and are not using adequate weight to stimulate.

People often cite Kai Greene, but even his training videos display plenty of momentum and “bad form”.

My squat is also relatively pathetic at maybe a conservative 1RM of 405lbs without wraps, and my BBB assistance work is usually with at least 225, focusing on pausing my reps, slowing the tempo, greater ROM, no rest-periods, etc.

[craze9]

[quote]dt79 wrote:
Improved neural efficiency simply lets you fire more motor units at a given time, which is why beginners can rep 90% of their maxes for more than 5 reps.

A beginner can also handle more volume because of this. Going to muscular failure in a moderate rep range for multiple sets will eventually activate and fatigue enough muscle fibers to induce growth regardless of the initial load, which of course must increase over time. It is all part of the body’s survival mechanism.

Your observation of beginners only growing after a few months (and I understand this is also what Thibaudeau has written about in the past) is in direct contrast to mine. Perhaps due to a difference in training methods?

Maybe your friend needs to eat more, because if he really is eating in a caloric excess, I would expect to at least see fat gain if not muscle mass.[/quote]

Okay so, hypothetically, if you were training my friend, what would you have him do?

29 year old, 5’9, 165 lbs, borderline skinny-fat (has a slight gut). He has been on Starting Strength for ~2 months, prior to this had not really exercised at all in years, and never lifted weights seriously. His lifts are OHP 75x5, Bench 100x5, Squat 185x5, Deadlift 185x5. Cannot do a pullup, or dips. He wants to build muscle, ideally lose fat too, but for the sake of argument let’s say his immediate goal is to get bigger arms.

What would you have him do? Load up the volume on curls and extensions?

I’m genuinely curious. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject, but I’d argue that adding 100lbs to his deadlift is more important than adding direct arm-work volume. That has been my approach – try to get him stronger, strong enough to do pullups and dips, by focusing on progress in the big lifts. He does a few sets of curls each week, but more than that?

I just have a hard time envisioning him (or anyone as weak as he is) getting big arms just by adding volume at a low intensity. The loads are too light. And even if it does “work”, the question is whether it works better than a lower volume of more strength-oriented work, i.e. driving up the poundages.

[Jarvan]

The rage is palpable.

#1 I shouldn’t have titled the thread the way I did. Which seems like its making many people irate.

Another error by me is that perhaps I presented this as if I myself am seeking hypertrophy. Which I am not. Although I wouldn’t mind bigger legs, it isn’t a personal goal of mine. My left leg measured just over 21 inches, and my right 20 3/4. I drive off my left leg during double leg takedowns so that probably explains it. I know my legs aren’t impressive. And that’s ok, I just need them to knee and kick bodies.

I squat everyday. Every single day. But not everyday is it with a barbell. Majority of the squats I do are BW, which probably bubbles everyones blood even more.

So the really pissed off guys are screaming in their heads, “Then why are you posting an article telling beginners that they don’t have to squat/lift heavy to gain size?”.

And that is because beginners don’t need to use a higher load to attain results. What I think many of us, including myself, forget is that aside from sharing ideas… we are essentially servicing beginners. And to me, brushing off noobie gains and setting expectations to gain 30lbs in 4 months, hit 225lbs squat in any set amount of time is causing more harm than good… And yes, it isn’t conducive to take 3 years to achieve 10lbs muscle gain. But what I’m sharing is just simply a different shade from ‘just shut and squat’. A beginner, or anyone, can and will accomplish so much more with their lifting program with just a little MMC. Incurring plateaus, joint pains are not ‘part of training’. If anything, training should revolve around preventing such things. We train to be resilient, not temporary and wilting. And from my personal experience, never, ever having hip tightness/pain, sore knees, or a tight lower back is worth the extra few seconds I take in each rep.

I wouldn’t condone that EVERYONE stay at 95lbs on their squats. It’s simply what I do,
I just enjoyed the article Lee Boyce posted.
I have used mainly 95lbs to squat for the past 3 years. But as Nighthawkz mentioned for me, it isn’t the only weight I use. I regularly throw on up to 225lbs somewhere in the work set. My max stable around 295lbs - 315lbs.

And to address Aero51. During the time I recommended 95lbs on your GVT, you were experiencing constant lower back issues and even foot pain. I don’t remember exactly, but I think your knees were iffy as well. It’s classic symptoms of hip lumbo complex issues when you have a chain of imbalances like that. Not to mention you have countless threads about how you’re always tired and feel weak.

[craze9]

Well, I don’t necessarily disagree with your general point, but am a little confused to learn you’re an athlete, and NOT just training for hypertrophy.

As an athlete wouldn’t you want to be stronger? Don’t you think your ability to finish a shot correlates to your squat strength? Don’t you think you’d kick harder if you squatted 400 instead of 300?

There is little doubt in my mind that if I had started barbell squatting as a freshman (or even earlier) I would have been a much more successful high school wrestler. And there is no doubt in my mind that my performance as an athlete now – even though it’s recreational – is much improved due to my relatively strong squat. E.g. I almost never run, for conditioning, but can still sprint faster than most people. And I can kick a lot harder than I used to.

[magick]

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
I squat everyday. Every single day. But not everyday is it with a barbell. Majority of the squats I do are BW, which probably bubbles everyones blood even more.
[/quote]

I do random sets of 10 body squats on everyday that I don’t do a barbell squat. My body starts to stiff up and the barbell squats get worse otherwise.

[Jarvan]

[quote]craze9 wrote:
Well, I don’t necessarily disagree with your general point, but am a little confused to learn you’re an athlete, and NOT just training for hypertrophy.

As an athlete wouldn’t you want to be stronger? Don’t you think your ability to finish a shot correlates to your squat strength? Don’t you think you’d kick harder if you squatted 400 instead of 300?

There is little doubt in my mind that if I had started barbell squatting as a freshman (or even earlier) I would have been a much more successful high school wrestler. And there is no doubt in my mind that my performance as an athlete now – even though it’s recreational – is much improved due to my relatively strong squat. E.g. I almost never run, for conditioning, but can still sprint faster than most people. And I can kick a lot harder than I used to.
[/quote]

Gaining more muscle is a good idea, but it can be bad too.
Too much muscle puts on too much weight. And too much weight makes it harder for me to make weight (on the scale). Muscle also requires a lot of fuel. Which means that it will hinder my stamina in a grueling fight. And extraneous muscle requires more maintenance. A hassle for someone like myself who isn’t planning on stepping on stage for my aesthetics. The muscle I have on my body now stays with me, even with simple calisthenics… Hence, the upkeep is minimal giving me ample time to focus on other skills.

And it is your personal opinion that squatting heavy would have given you an edge in wrestling. Dan Gable didn’t barbell squat, although he did use resistance training. If you read about his resistance training, it would be very hard to agree that it would hold any bearing on his wrestling success. But would you disagree with Dan Gable? It’s also important to note that the Russian wrestlers he absolutely decimated in the Olympics used kettlebell training.

As an athlete strength plays an integral role. But strength is but one attribute in a sport where overall balance is of utmost importance. The ability to finish a takedown is not at all conducive to my squat number. If it was, I would definitely seek a 400lbs squat, rather than drilling takedowns. But the truth is, a big squat number doesn’t translate into quickness or finishing a takedown. No man will properly sit on your back so that you hoist him up, or drive through his legs. He’s going to sprawl, he’s going to drive your head and neck to the ground, and he’s gonna try to control you with his whizzer. What you’ll end up in is a dog fight in all sorts of positions. A super high squat number holds no bearing at this point.

With that said, of course strength is important, especially in the squat. But the there comes a point where the sacrifices outweigh the benefits.

And about kicking harder…
I understand not everyone trains MMA or Muay Thai, so I’ll tell you. You don’t learn to kick harder by squatting more. You learn to kick harder by being more flexible, whipping, refining technique, and thousands of reps. Please remember, I am not saying to stop getting stronger. I am saying that while squatting is important, it is more important to squat to attain the results you want. In my case, getting back up to 365lbs wouldn’t help, but hurt me.

[Jarvan]

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
I squat everyday. Every single day. But not everyday is it with a barbell. Majority of the squats I do are BW, which probably bubbles everyones blood even more.
[/quote]

I do random sets of 10 body squats on everyday that I don’t do a barbell squat. My body starts to stiff up and the barbell squats get worse otherwise.[/quote]

Same here. I believe the majority is very much attached to just brutally abusing a body part once or twice a week. And of course attached to that is the notion, or demand for more weight, more reps, more pain. I compare it to a stressed college kid having only two nights to CRAM down as much information as possible… When in fact, studying an hour here and there everyday would be of exponentially more beneficial.
Then of course the brain, just like the muscle, just as quickly forgets the stimulation brought upon it…

[Yogi1]

lol, why are we saying beginners need more MMC when they squat? MMC is worth working on for things like pulldowns or lateral raises; exercises where people often have trouble feeling the target exercise.

But for squats? Doesn’t matter a damn about the MMC. You sit down, you stand back up, your quads are working.

If people aren’t seeing the quad growth they want from squats it’s not because of MMC, it’s because of levers, rep range etc.

[dt79]

[quote]craze9 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
Improved neural efficiency simply lets you fire more motor units at a given time, which is why beginners can rep 90% of their maxes for more than 5 reps.

A beginner can also handle more volume because of this. Going to muscular failure in a moderate rep range for multiple sets will eventually activate and fatigue enough muscle fibers to induce growth regardless of the initial load, which of course must increase over time. It is all part of the body’s survival mechanism.

Your observation of beginners only growing after a few months (and I understand this is also what Thibaudeau has written about in the past) is in direct contrast to mine. Perhaps due to a difference in training methods?

Maybe your friend needs to eat more, because if he really is eating in a caloric excess, I would expect to at least see fat gain if not muscle mass.[/quote]

Okay so, hypothetically, if you were training my friend, what would you have him do?

29 year old, 5’9, 165 lbs, borderline skinny-fat (has a slight gut). He has been on Starting Strength for ~2 months, prior to this had not really exercised at all in years, and never lifted weights seriously. His lifts are OHP 75x5, Bench 100x5, Squat 185x5, Deadlift 185x5. Cannot do a pullup, or dips. He wants to build muscle, ideally lose fat too, but for the sake of argument let’s say his immediate goal is to get bigger arms.

What would you have him do? Load up the volume on curls and extensions?

I’m genuinely curious. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject, but I’d argue that adding 100lbs to his deadlift is more important than adding direct arm-work volume. That has been my approach – try to get him stronger, strong enough to do pullups and dips, by focusing on progress in the big lifts. He does a few sets of curls each week, but more than that?

I just have a hard time envisioning him (or anyone as weak as he is) getting big arms just by adding volume at a low intensity. The loads are too light. And even if it does “work”, the question is whether it works better than a lower volume of more strength-oriented work, i.e. driving up the poundages. [/quote]

I’d just tell him to eat more since he’s not growing, which means he’s not gaining bodyweight.

[craze9]

[quote]dt79 wrote:
I’d just tell him to eat more since he’s not growing, which means he’s not gaining bodyweight.[/quote]

His arms aren’t getting more muscular therefore he isn’t gaining bodyweight? Not sure that follows. As a point of fact he is gaining bodyweight, at a moderate rate, and I do tell him (constantly) to eat more.

But the example was intended as a hypothetical about training methodology (the topic of the thread), not diet. You seem to be saying you wouldn’t change anything in that regard. Just checking.