Waterbury's Thoughts: 10x10

Training Bodybuilding
21

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
industrialplaid wrote:
pat36: I don’t mean to interject in the conversation, as pretty much everyone in this thread is far more knowledgeable than I am, but I am wondering if the phenomenon you are experiencing with your “pick up” sets (60 > 50 > 40 > 50 > …) is the same phenomenon that makes rest-pause training possible.

You do, let’s say, 8 reps at 60, then 8 at 50, then 8 at 40, then 4 at 50, then 2 at 60, for example. In between your set at 50 and the next one at 50 you are pausing momentarily to reset the weight. I know it’s an extremely short pause, but it might be just enough time to let your muscle recuperate for the next set.

Try dropping down and doing a set of pushups to failure. Then, relax on the ground for a second or two and do another pushup. You can do this for quite a while before you reach total failure and can no longer continue.

I’d imagine that if you had a machine that could smoothly adjust load while you were in the middle of a set, and you were doing your tricep rope pulldowns, you’d be unable to do your “pick up” set.

For example, if you failed on the 8th rep at 60 pounds, then the machine was adjusted as you struggled with the 8th rep to drop to 50, you continue for 6 more reps then the machine adjusts to 40 while you struggle unsuccessfully with the rep. I’d bet that when you reached failure on, say, the 6th rep at 40lbs, you would continue to fail (so to speak) if the machine auto-adjusted back up to 50 lbs.

That’s just my initial thought. I’m not sure if recovery can happen that quickly, but I don’t know how else you’d explain it.

On another note, I’m surprised no HIT junkies have developed a machine like the one I described.

Actually there already exist machines like the one you described. They’re called isokinetic resistance machines. Basically, the more force that you exert against the machine the more resistance it gives you, the less force that you exert the less resistance it gives you.

So, as you fatigued and were capable of producing less and less force the machine would give you less and less resistance. I think you’d find though that this would tend to disprove the notion that you can go back up in resistance after failing at a lower resistance.

Like Industrial suggested, the reason for being able to go back up might be that you are taking mini breaks between changing the resistance.

Try this for an experiment. Get a pair of 25’s, 20’s, 15’s, 10’s, and 5’s and line them up next to one another. Now, doing bent over laterals go to failure with the 25’s, immedietely drop them and pick up the 20’s and go to failure, immediately drop them and pick up the 15’s, repeat this until you’ve failed with the 5’s, then try doing reps with the 10’s.

You must really, really be quick switching between the dumbbells. No breaths, no rest. You should be switching between the dumbbells like your life depends on it.

I’ve done this going down the line (trying also to not only switch between the weights as quickly as possible, but also to finish the reps as fast as possible) and can say from experience, that I know I wouldn’t have been able to go back up the line (at least without using atrocious form and making the bent laterals into more of a dumbbell high pull). If you can then either you’re not really going to failure like you think you are, or you’ve got some crazy physiology that’s quite different from mine.

Good training,

Sentoguy[/quote]

I’ll try that today! That sound like fun. I’ll try it and report back and I will be as honest as I can without lying…:slight_smile:

22

I’m very glad this thread sparked such an intelligent and interesting conversation. I would like to reference a quote from Charles Staley at this point.

“There’s no “best way.” There really isn’t, so stop looking for it. There are various ways that can and do work. Great bodies have been built using everything from GVT to EDT to HST to HIT. People have lost weight using everything from low-carb to high-carb to high protein. Ever wonder why that is? It’s because 1) There’s no best way, and 2) it’s the behaviors behind the methods that primarily determine success!”

What really matters is to find a training approach and philosophy that you enjoy and can stick with. For me this happens to be a higher volume never to failure approach which is why I am such huge fan for Chad W’s and Pavel’s work not to mention Charles P. I can’t wait to try Chad’s “Singles” workout that was just posted on the site this week but I am right in the middle of an 8 week EDT cycle so it’s going to have to wait!

23

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
industrialplaid wrote:
pat36: I don’t mean to interject in the conversation, as pretty much everyone in this thread is far more knowledgeable than I am, but I am wondering if the phenomenon you are experiencing with your “pick up” sets (60 > 50 > 40 > 50 > …) is the same phenomenon that makes rest-pause training possible.

You do, let’s say, 8 reps at 60, then 8 at 50, then 8 at 40, then 4 at 50, then 2 at 60, for example. In between your set at 50 and the next one at 50 you are pausing momentarily to reset the weight. I know it’s an extremely short pause, but it might be just enough time to let your muscle recuperate for the next set.

Try dropping down and doing a set of pushups to failure. Then, relax on the ground for a second or two and do another pushup. You can do this for quite a while before you reach total failure and can no longer continue.

I’d imagine that if you had a machine that could smoothly adjust load while you were in the middle of a set, and you were doing your tricep rope pulldowns, you’d be unable to do your “pick up” set.

For example, if you failed on the 8th rep at 60 pounds, then the machine was adjusted as you struggled with the 8th rep to drop to 50, you continue for 6 more reps then the machine adjusts to 40 while you struggle unsuccessfully with the rep. I’d bet that when you reached failure on, say, the 6th rep at 40lbs, you would continue to fail (so to speak) if the machine auto-adjusted back up to 50 lbs.

That’s just my initial thought. I’m not sure if recovery can happen that quickly, but I don’t know how else you’d explain it.

On another note, I’m surprised no HIT junkies have developed a machine like the one I described.

Actually there already exist machines like the one you described. They’re called isokinetic resistance machines. Basically, the more force that you exert against the machine the more resistance it gives you, the less force that you exert the less resistance it gives you.

So, as you fatigued and were capable of producing less and less force the machine would give you less and less resistance. I think you’d find though that this would tend to disprove the notion that you can go back up in resistance after failing at a lower resistance.

Like Industrial suggested, the reason for being able to go back up might be that you are taking mini breaks between changing the resistance.

Try this for an experiment. Get a pair of 25’s, 20’s, 15’s, 10’s, and 5’s and line them up next to one another. Now, doing bent over laterals go to failure with the 25’s, immedietely drop them and pick up the 20’s and go to failure, immediately drop them and pick up the 15’s, repeat this until you’ve failed with the 5’s, then try doing reps with the 10’s.

You must really, really be quick switching between the dumbbells. No breaths, no rest. You should be switching between the dumbbells like your life depends on it.

I’ve done this going down the line (trying also to not only switch between the weights as quickly as possible, but also to finish the reps as fast as possible) and can say from experience, that I know I wouldn’t have been able to go back up the line (at least without using atrocious form and making the bent laterals into more of a dumbbell high pull). If you can then either you’re not really going to failure like you think you are, or you’ve got some crazy physiology that’s quite different from mine.

Good training,

Sentoguy

I’ll try that today! That sound like fun. I’ll try it and report back and I will be as honest as I can without lying…:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Alright, I did it. My shoulders are fucking fried damn you!!!

Anyway hear is what I did as we discussed. I took a 25, 20 and 15 lbs. hex dumbbells and laid them side by side on a pretty high bench were they were easy to grab right away. I commenced the lateral raises as follows.

Set 1 looked like this:
16 x 25 lbs.
6? X 20 lbs.
5.5? x 15lbs
1.5 x 20 lbs.

This was a drop set like we discussed. I kept my form as well as I could through the pain. But after failing at 15lbs. I was able to get 20 lbs 1.5 times. As I was coming down with the last rep of 15 lbs. I was placing it on the bench and picking up the 20’s as fast as possible. I did pause briefly (>1 sec.) with in the context of doing the 25’s to get the last reps, I wanted to fail as completely as I could.

Also, I paused with in doing the 15’s briefly to make sure I squeezed out the last bit and failed as hard as I could. I made the conscious effort to switch weights as fast as I could. The questions marks mean I don’t know for sure how many reps I got, I was on fire and lost count.

Set 2 looked like this:
15 x 25 lbs.
7 x 20 lbs.
5 x 15 lbs.
2.5 x 20 lbs.

Same kind of thing as the first set. I made damn sure I my shoulders were totally trashed on the 15 lbs. I mean I couldn’t move them, but I was able to go up and knock a couple reps with 20 and almost got a third.

My shoulders are just trashed…It was fun. Y’all should try it.

24

What I need to do is review Waterbury’s methodology. I need to go back and review his articles starting with the “This is going to change everything…” one. I don’t remember the exact name but, I think I am starting to understand his philosophy. I don’t know if I agree it’s the best thing since sliced bread, but it’s definitely interesting.

I tell you where I think it would be the most helpful is in-season train for an athlete. You don’t really want to wear out a hockey, football, basketball, or baseball player during the season. Using the Waterbury philosophy, I think you could actually not only maintain the athletes in top form but even improve them in-season. Keeping them training while minimizing fatigue would be worth gold in the pros for sure.

As far as for me, I think a hybrid approach still would work better than a purly speed focused method. If nothing else, Waterbury, though not inventing a kind of training per se, really brought an element of thinking about training a different way.

Sento and friends, thanks for the conversation. I am learning and I love it.

25

[quote]pat36 wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
industrialplaid wrote:
pat36: I don’t mean to interject in the conversation, as pretty much everyone in this thread is far more knowledgeable than I am, but I am wondering if the phenomenon you are experiencing with your “pick up” sets (60 > 50 > 40 > 50 > …) is the same phenomenon that makes rest-pause training possible.

You do, let’s say, 8 reps at 60, then 8 at 50, then 8 at 40, then 4 at 50, then 2 at 60, for example. In between your set at 50 and the next one at 50 you are pausing momentarily to reset the weight. I know it’s an extremely short pause, but it might be just enough time to let your muscle recuperate for the next set.

Try dropping down and doing a set of pushups to failure. Then, relax on the ground for a second or two and do another pushup. You can do this for quite a while before you reach total failure and can no longer continue.

I’d imagine that if you had a machine that could smoothly adjust load while you were in the middle of a set, and you were doing your tricep rope pulldowns, you’d be unable to do your “pick up” set.

For example, if you failed on the 8th rep at 60 pounds, then the machine was adjusted as you struggled with the 8th rep to drop to 50, you continue for 6 more reps then the machine adjusts to 40 while you struggle unsuccessfully with the rep. I’d bet that when you reached failure on, say, the 6th rep at 40lbs, you would continue to fail (so to speak) if the machine auto-adjusted back up to 50 lbs.

That’s just my initial thought. I’m not sure if recovery can happen that quickly, but I don’t know how else you’d explain it.

On another note, I’m surprised no HIT junkies have developed a machine like the one I described.

Actually there already exist machines like the one you described. They’re called isokinetic resistance machines. Basically, the more force that you exert against the machine the more resistance it gives you, the less force that you exert the less resistance it gives you.

So, as you fatigued and were capable of producing less and less force the machine would give you less and less resistance. I think you’d find though that this would tend to disprove the notion that you can go back up in resistance after failing at a lower resistance.

Like Industrial suggested, the reason for being able to go back up might be that you are taking mini breaks between changing the resistance.

Try this for an experiment. Get a pair of 25’s, 20’s, 15’s, 10’s, and 5’s and line them up next to one another. Now, doing bent over laterals go to failure with the 25’s, immedietely drop them and pick up the 20’s and go to failure, immediately drop them and pick up the 15’s, repeat this until you’ve failed with the 5’s, then try doing reps with the 10’s.

You must really, really be quick switching between the dumbbells. No breaths, no rest. You should be switching between the dumbbells like your life depends on it.

I’ve done this going down the line (trying also to not only switch between the weights as quickly as possible, but also to finish the reps as fast as possible) and can say from experience, that I know I wouldn’t have been able to go back up the line (at least without using atrocious form and making the bent laterals into more of a dumbbell high pull). If you can then either you’re not really going to failure like you think you are, or you’ve got some crazy physiology that’s quite different from mine.

Good training,

Sentoguy

I’ll try that today! That sound like fun. I’ll try it and report back and I will be as honest as I can without lying…:slight_smile:

Alright, I did it. My shoulders are fucking fried damn you!!!

Anyway hear is what I did as we discussed. I took a 25, 20 and 15 lbs. hex dumbbells and laid them side by side on a pretty high bench were they were easy to grab right away. I commenced the lateral raises as follows.

Set 1 looked like this:
16 x 25 lbs.
6? X 20 lbs.
5.5? x 15lbs
1.5 x 20 lbs.

This was a drop set like we discussed. I kept my form as well as I could through the pain. But after failing at 15lbs. I was able to get 20 lbs 1.5 times. As I was coming down with the last rep of 15 lbs. I was placing it on the bench and picking up the 20’s as fast as possible. I did pause briefly (>1 sec.) with in the context of doing the 25’s to get the last reps, I wanted to fail as completely as I could.

Also, I paused with in doing the 15’s briefly to make sure I squeezed out the last bit and failed as hard as I could. I made the conscious effort to switch weights as fast as I could. The questions marks mean I don’t know for sure how many reps I got, I was on fire and lost count.

Set 2 looked like this:
15 x 25 lbs.
7 x 20 lbs.
5 x 15 lbs.
2.5 x 20 lbs.

Same kind of thing as the first set. I made damn sure I my shoulders were totally trashed on the 15 lbs. I mean I couldn’t move them, but I was able to go up and knock a couple reps with 20 and almost got a third.

My shoulders are just trashed…It was fun. Y’all should try it.
[/quote]

Hey Pat,

Way to step up and test the theory out. Well, what the heck I’ll trust that you are being honest and were able to do just what you stated above. I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong and I’m not one to argue with real world results.

It is a very interesting phenomenon, one that seems to contradict what we “think” we know about fatigue. It’d be interesting to see what the physiological mechanism behind this phenomenon is. Perhaps as you said, even that seemingly non existent rest period between changing the weights is enough to allow for some recovery.

Like I said before, one of these days I’ll give it a shot myself and see how I do with it.

Good training,

Sentoguy

26

Actually, I don’t think you’re wrong, per se. I could just be an anomaly. I have certainly never heard anything different then we’ve discussed from the experts. I guess we just don’t fully understand fatigue and recovery as well as we think we do.

I did try to stay as true as possible, keep form up as well as I could and such, but I’d really like others to try it and see. I’ll throw them in again next week and see what results I get. Or what I could try is to go to failure on a lighter weight first and then move up and go to failure instead of decline. I’ll try decline then incline on one set and then just incline on the next.

If I keep this up, I may need to by some new shirts to accommodate some massive delts! I wonder if we could get some feedback from some authors on this? I’d like to hear what Thibs, Waterbury, Poloquin, TC and the like would have to say about this…

27

Maybe I’m splitting hairs but I’ve always read/seen this as “the three ways of increasing strength”

28

[quote]conwict wrote:
Here is the thing, like Zatsiorsky mentions, there are basically 3 ways to recruit maximal MU’s/muscle fibers.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs but I’ve always read/seen this as “the three ways of increasing strength”[/quote]

Yeah, you’re splitting hairs. :wink:

Seriously though, to the best of my knowledge there are only two ways that the muscles can improve strength.

  1. by recruiting more MU’s/muscle fibers (neuromuscular improvements)

or

  1. by increasing the cross sectional area of the fibers themselves (hypertrophy)

It is generally accepted that the first option occurs first in sequence, hence the dramatic strength increases that newbies experience during their first couple months of training. But, once these neuromuscular improvements have occurred then the emphasis switches to the muscles themselves. And the only way for the muscles themselves to improve strength wise is to grow bigger.

Were you trying to argue that strength is not correlated to MU/muscle fiber recruitment? Or were you trying to suggest that strength is not correlated to building muscle? Or were you trying to suggest something entirely different?

29

[quote]conwict wrote:
Here is the thing, like Zatsiorsky mentions, there are basically 3 ways to recruit maximal MU’s/muscle fibers.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs but I’ve always read/seen this as “the three ways of increasing strength”[/quote]

Yeah, you’re splitting hairs. :wink:

Seriously though, to the best of my knowledge there are only two ways that the muscles can improve strength.

  1. by recruiting more MU’s/muscle fibers (neuromuscular improvements)

or

  1. by increasing the cross sectional area of the fibers themselves (hypertrophy)

It is generally accepted that the first option occurs first in sequence, hence the dramatic strength increases that newbies experience during their first couple months of training. But, once these neuromuscular improvements have occurred then the emphasis switches to the muscles themselves. And the only way for the muscles themselves to improve strength wise is to grow bigger.

Were you trying to argue that strength is not correlated to MU/muscle fiber recruitment? Or were you trying to suggest that strength is not correlated to building muscle? Or were you trying to suggest something entirely different?

30

I wasn’t really suggesting anything, just pointing out the different phrasing. Actually, I checked his book out of a library the other day, and after looking at it it actually reads something like “to achieve maximal muscle tension.”

He lists as a fourth category what is basically known as assistance work.

The “lifting a load to failure” is mainly to increase cross-section, he says…he calls the method, which induces the most hypertrophy, something like a “potent tool for increasing strength” as well.

So it would be fair to say that max effort lifting recruits maximal motor units…repeated effort causes primarily cross-sectional increases by breaking down more contractile protein, and increases in strength over time…and dynamic effort increases power/force production.

What’s interesting is he also says using submaximal loads, and not going to failure, you can achieve a similar effect to the “failure” method by using very short rest periods, and thus induce hypertrophy.

He’s really writing for people with a focus on strength…so you can definitely (like Chad Waterbury has done) shift the parameters for more of a focus on hypertrophy.

I’m not really getting at anything in particular here. And I still don’t necessarily know what “maximum tension” is.

31

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
industrialplaid wrote:
pat36: I don’t mean to interject in the conversation, as pretty much everyone in this thread is far more knowledgeable than I am, but I am wondering if the phenomenon you are experiencing with your “pick up” sets (60 > 50 > 40 > 50 > …) is the same phenomenon that makes rest-pause training possible.

You do, let’s say, 8 reps at 60, then 8 at 50, then 8 at 40, then 4 at 50, then 2 at 60, for example. In between your set at 50 and the next one at 50 you are pausing momentarily to reset the weight. I know it’s an extremely short pause, but it might be just enough time to let your muscle recuperate for the next set.

Try dropping down and doing a set of pushups to failure. Then, relax on the ground for a second or two and do another pushup. You can do this for quite a while before you reach total failure and can no longer continue.

I’d imagine that if you had a machine that could smoothly adjust load while you were in the middle of a set, and you were doing your tricep rope pulldowns, you’d be unable to do your “pick up” set.

For example, if you failed on the 8th rep at 60 pounds, then the machine was adjusted as you struggled with the 8th rep to drop to 50, you continue for 6 more reps then the machine adjusts to 40 while you struggle unsuccessfully with the rep. I’d bet that when you reached failure on, say, the 6th rep at 40lbs, you would continue to fail (so to speak) if the machine auto-adjusted back up to 50 lbs.

That’s just my initial thought. I’m not sure if recovery can happen that quickly, but I don’t know how else you’d explain it.

On another note, I’m surprised no HIT junkies have developed a machine like the one I described.

Actually there already exist machines like the one you described. They’re called isokinetic resistance machines. Basically, the more force that you exert against the machine the more resistance it gives you, the less force that you exert the less resistance it gives you.

So, as you fatigued and were capable of producing less and less force the machine would give you less and less resistance. I think you’d find though that this would tend to disprove the notion that you can go back up in resistance after failing at a lower resistance.

Like Industrial suggested, the reason for being able to go back up might be that you are taking mini breaks between changing the resistance.

Try this for an experiment. Get a pair of 25’s, 20’s, 15’s, 10’s, and 5’s and line them up next to one another. Now, doing bent over laterals go to failure with the 25’s, immedietely drop them and pick up the 20’s and go to failure, immediately drop them and pick up the 15’s, repeat this until you’ve failed with the 5’s, then try doing reps with the 10’s.

You must really, really be quick switching between the dumbbells. No breaths, no rest. You should be switching between the dumbbells like your life depends on it.

I’ve done this going down the line (trying also to not only switch between the weights as quickly as possible, but also to finish the reps as fast as possible) and can say from experience, that I know I wouldn’t have been able to go back up the line (at least without using atrocious form and making the bent laterals into more of a dumbbell high pull). If you can then either you’re not really going to failure like you think you are, or you’ve got some crazy physiology that’s quite different from mine.

Good training,

Sentoguy[/quote]

Sentoguy,

It’s good to see intelligent discussion about “what is true” rather then “who is right”. Some people start calling each other “fags” and “fucking losers” when a disagreement comes up.

You make some very good points about fatigue being an integral part of stimulating hypertrophy, but one thing you may not have taken into consideration about CW’s theories is frequency.

This is perhaps a whole new discussion (the importance of frequency for hypertrohpy), but by controlling fatigue, you are able to work out more often. Although I like pushing my sets to failure as it makes the workout more fun, the extra “fatigue reps” always take a lot out of me.

Whenever I have dabbled in strength training (4 to 6 reps) for a week or two, I have always recovered quickly and felt I could work the muscle again sooner.

This, I believe, is also the reason that CW recommends longer rest periods in between sets for higer reps (which is inverse to the traditional approach). Low reps (usually non-failure) don’t demand nearly as much from the nervous system even though the relative “intensity” is higher.

32

Do you have a statement where he actually says that as a general prescription?

Just asking because I’ve noticed that the opposite is true in some programs…like his new Max Recruitment Training.

33

[quote]conwict wrote:
This, I believe, is also the reason that CW recommends longer rest periods in between sets for higer reps (which is inverse to the traditional approach). Low reps (usually non-failure) don’t demand nearly as much from the nervous system even though the relative “intensity” is higher.

Do you have a statement where he actually says that as a general prescription?

Just asking because I’ve noticed that the opposite is true in some programs…like his new Max Recruitment Training.

[/quote]

I don’t know exactly what article contained his statement about it, but he has made the statement for sure. It does really make sense. If your time-under-tension is longer in a set, then your rest periods would need to be longer as well to fully recover.

34

[quote]conwict wrote:
I wasn’t really suggesting anything, just pointing out the different phrasing. Actually, I checked his book out of a library the other day, and after looking at it it actually reads something like “to achieve maximal muscle tension.”

He lists as a fourth category what is basically known as assistance work.

The “lifting a load to failure” is mainly to increase cross-section, he says…he calls the method, which induces the most hypertrophy, something like a “potent tool for increasing strength” as well.

So it would be fair to say that max effort lifting recruits maximal motor units…repeated effort causes primarily cross-sectional increases by breaking down more contractile protein, and increases in strength over time…and dynamic effort increases power/force production.

What’s interesting is he also says using submaximal loads, and not going to failure, you can achieve a similar effect to the “failure” method by using very short rest periods, and thus induce hypertrophy.

He’s really writing for people with a focus on strength…so you can definitely (like Chad Waterbury has done) shift the parameters for more of a focus on hypertrophy.

I’m not really getting at anything in particular here. And I still don’t necessarily know what “maximum tension” is.[/quote]

Cool, I get what you’re saying.

The thing is that while I did mention Zatsiorsky, I have also seen studies that basically proved that all available (identified) MU’s/muscle fibers are recruited during the last rep (or couple reps) during a “fatigue set” (which would include a set to momentary muscular failure).

Also, yes, fatigue can be acute or cumulative. If rest periods are kept to a minimum then fatigue is maintained, thus also leading to an increase in MU recruitment (basically due to the same phenomenon that occurs during a set to failure).

Maximal muscle tension is only possible if all MU’s/muscle fibers are contracting, so while the semantics might be different, the two statements pretty much have the same meaning.

Good training,

Sentoguy

35

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

Sentoguy,

It’s good to see intelligent discussion about “what is true” rather then “who is right”. Some people start calling each other “fags” and “fucking losers” when a disagreement comes up.

You make some very good points about fatigue being an integral part of stimulating hypertrophy, but one thing you may not have taken into consideration about CW’s theories is frequency.

This is perhaps a whole new discussion (the importance of frequency for hypertrohpy), but by controlling fatigue, you are able to work out more often. Although I like pushing my sets to failure as it makes the workout more fun, the extra “fatigue reps” always take a lot out of me.

Whenever I have dabbled in strength training (4 to 6 reps) for a week or two, I have always recovered quickly and felt I could work the muscle again sooner.

This, I believe, is also the reason that CW recommends longer rest periods in between sets for higer reps (which is inverse to the traditional approach). Low reps (usually non-failure) don’t demand nearly as much from the nervous system even though the relative “intensity” is higher.

[/quote]

Hi Mytch,

CW is a big proponent of “two cycle theory” as it’s often times referred to. Poliquin’s “Super Accumulation” program is another example of a "two cycle theory program.

Basically two cycle theory suggests that by not allowing full recovery to occur, and by accumulative lots and lots of fatigue for an extended period of time and then backing completely off from training (or at least taking a de-loading week) the summation of supercompensation effects will outweigh the supercompensation effects that would have occurred during a traditional breakdown, recovery and growth process.

Wow. Does that ever sound overcomplicated. LOL.

In much simpler terms, if you work out with lots of frequency for an extended period of time, then back off and allow growth to occur, you will get more growth than had you followed a traditional program.

Now, whether of not this actually is a true statement is up for debate. There are certainly people out there who have done this type of program and gotten good results from them.

On the other hand from a statistical standpoint, there are a lot more people out there who have built incredible physiques using traditional stress/recovery/growth models.

Finally another thing to consider in terms of traditional body part splits is that they generally contain a lot of volume. This generally means that as a result the athlete must give his/her body an entire week to recover and hopefully supercompensate from the workout. Now, if volume were decreased, then the body would be able to recover in less time, thus once again allowing for increased frequency (although not as frequent as some of CW’s programs).

Good training,

Sentoguy

36

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
MytchBucanan wrote:

Sentoguy,

It’s good to see intelligent discussion about “what is true” rather then “who is right”. Some people start calling each other “fags” and “fucking losers” when a disagreement comes up.

You make some very good points about fatigue being an integral part of stimulating hypertrophy, but one thing you may not have taken into consideration about CW’s theories is frequency.

This is perhaps a whole new discussion (the importance of frequency for hypertrohpy), but by controlling fatigue, you are able to work out more often. Although I like pushing my sets to failure as it makes the workout more fun, the extra “fatigue reps” always take a lot out of me.

Whenever I have dabbled in strength training (4 to 6 reps) for a week or two, I have always recovered quickly and felt I could work the muscle again sooner.

This, I believe, is also the reason that CW recommends longer rest periods in between sets for higer reps (which is inverse to the traditional approach). Low reps (usually non-failure) don’t demand nearly as much from the nervous system even though the relative “intensity” is higher.

Hi Mytch,

CW is a big proponent of “two cycle theory” as it’s often times referred to. Poliquin’s “Super Accumulation” program is another example of a "two cycle theory program.

Basically two cycle theory suggests that by not allowing full recovery to occur, and by accumulative lots and lots of fatigue for an extended period of time and then backing completely off from training (or at least taking a de-loading week) the summation of supercompensation effects will outweigh the supercompensation effects that would have occurred during a traditional breakdown, recovery and growth process.

Wow. Does that ever sound overcomplicated. LOL.

In much simpler terms, if you work out with lots of frequency for an extended period of time, then back off and allow growth to occur, you will get more growth than had you followed a traditional program.

Now, whether of not this actually is a true statement is up for debate. There are certainly people out there who have done this type of program and gotten good results from them.

On the other hand from a statistical standpoint, there are a lot more people out there who have built incredible physiques using traditional stress/recovery/growth models.

Finally another thing to consider in terms of traditional body part splits is that they generally contain a lot of volume. This generally means that as a result the athlete must give his/her body an entire week to recover and hopefully supercompensate from the workout. Now, if volume were decreased, then the body would be able to recover in less time, thus once again allowing for increased frequency (although not as frequent as some of CW’s programs).

Good training,

Sentoguy[/quote]

Sentoguy,

I am familiar with the “supercompensation program” or “planned overtraining”. I dont’ remember Chad discussing it much if it all, but I admit I haven’t read all of his material.

I did read some of Poliquin’s examples. What is frustrating about Charles is that he often leaves you with more questions than you had to begin with. Maybe it is just a smart marketing technique, but I always need more clarification after reading his material.

Now that we are on the subject, he did give several different examples of how to “over-reach”. The most basic was training a bodypart three days in a row.

I tried it with triceps and ended up with sore elbows. I think the mistake I made was that I didn’t take enough time off after the three day assault.

If supercomensation really does work, wouldn’t that mean the “one-day-arm-cure” would work as well? It is at least three full workouts all done in one day. I did it once and had four full days rest before and after, and I never saw any growth from it.

37

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
MytchBucanan wrote:

Sentoguy,

It’s good to see intelligent discussion about “what is true” rather then “who is right”. Some people start calling each other “fags” and “fucking losers” when a disagreement comes up.

You make some very good points about fatigue being an integral part of stimulating hypertrophy, but one thing you may not have taken into consideration about CW’s theories is frequency.

This is perhaps a whole new discussion (the importance of frequency for hypertrohpy), but by controlling fatigue, you are able to work out more often. Although I like pushing my sets to failure as it makes the workout more fun, the extra “fatigue reps” always take a lot out of me.

Whenever I have dabbled in strength training (4 to 6 reps) for a week or two, I have always recovered quickly and felt I could work the muscle again sooner.

This, I believe, is also the reason that CW recommends longer rest periods in between sets for higer reps (which is inverse to the traditional approach). Low reps (usually non-failure) don’t demand nearly as much from the nervous system even though the relative “intensity” is higher.

Hi Mytch,

CW is a big proponent of “two cycle theory” as it’s often times referred to. Poliquin’s “Super Accumulation” program is another example of a "two cycle theory program.

Basically two cycle theory suggests that by not allowing full recovery to occur, and by accumulative lots and lots of fatigue for an extended period of time and then backing completely off from training (or at least taking a de-loading week) the summation of supercompensation effects will outweigh the supercompensation effects that would have occurred during a traditional breakdown, recovery and growth process.

Wow. Does that ever sound overcomplicated. LOL.

In much simpler terms, if you work out with lots of frequency for an extended period of time, then back off and allow growth to occur, you will get more growth than had you followed a traditional program.

Now, whether of not this actually is a true statement is up for debate. There are certainly people out there who have done this type of program and gotten good results from them.

On the other hand from a statistical standpoint, there are a lot more people out there who have built incredible physiques using traditional stress/recovery/growth models.

Finally another thing to consider in terms of traditional body part splits is that they generally contain a lot of volume. This generally means that as a result the athlete must give his/her body an entire week to recover and hopefully supercompensate from the workout. Now, if volume were decreased, then the body would be able to recover in less time, thus once again allowing for increased frequency (although not as frequent as some of CW’s programs).

Good training,

Sentoguy

Sentoguy,

I am familiar with the “supercompensation program” or “planned overtraining”. I dont’ remember Chad discussing it much if it all, but I admit I haven’t read all of his material.

I did read some of Poliquin’s examples. What is frustrating about Charles is that he often leaves you with more questions than you had to begin with. Maybe it is just a smart marketing technique, but I always need more clarification after reading his material.

Now that we are on the subject, he did give several different examples of how to “over-reach”. The most basic was training a bodypart three days in a row.

I tried it with triceps and ended up with sore elbows. I think the mistake I made was that I didn’t take enough time off after the three day assault.

If supercomensation really does work, wouldn’t that mean the “one-day-arm-cure” would work as well? It is at least three full workouts all done in one day. I did it once and had four full days rest before and after, and I never saw any growth from it.

[/quote]

Sorry to interject. I kind of let this thread go and saw there has been some new enlightening activity. Sure super compensation would work, but it works better if you “train” you body to recover faster. That’s where HFT comes in. Training in a HFT style actually “teaches” the body to recover faster.

I am not sure the mechanism involved, but you fatigue the muscle serveral days in a row, you body compensates eventually by preparing your body for the activity, because it doesn’t want to accumulate fatigue. Then after that you throw in super compensation and you can really get some serious growth.

However, for us older gents, you need more than five days to recover if you have accumulated enough fatigue and that is a major down side to super accumulation. I tried it, sort of, but it took me nine days to recover.
I got more to say, but am running out of time to say it. I have researched the HTMU recruitment theory a bit more. More on that later.

38

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

Sentoguy,

I am familiar with the “supercompensation program” or “planned overtraining”. I dont’ remember Chad discussing it much if it all, but I admit I haven’t read all of his material.
[/quote]

Read his “30 day mass plan” article. While he doesn’t specifically mention supercompensation, he still eludes to it. He basically states that people don’t usually see results while one his programs. It’s generally not until one stops doing the program (either for a rest/de-loading period, or changes to a different style of training) that they see results. Basically in a nutshell, that’s two cycle theory.

Poliquin often writes in a manner geared towards advanced athletes. Not saying that you aren’t advanced, but perhaps just not a experienced as the audience to whom he is referring to. He is notorious for not following up in his post article threads though. In fact, I’ve very rarely (if ever) seen him answer any questions that were posed in the article threads. But keep in mind that he is an incredibly busy man and may just not have the time to answer questions. It could also be that he wants people to try out his stuff and then find the answers for themselves.

One of the real problems that I’ve seen with really high frequency (and the “super accumulation” program would fall into that category) is that they can very easily lead to joint and connective tissue problems. Sure, the muscles are extremely adaptive, but the connective tissues are far less. This can sometimes result in things like tendonitis, epicondylitis, bursitis, etc… (hope I spelled those right lol).

Also, the “one-day-arm-cure” would only work if during that one day you gave your muscles a sufficient overload. This is honestly one of the problems that I see with HFT in general. If you’re training a muscle daily, then it’s going to be tough to make significant improvements in strength/performance from workout to workout. And that is key to making improvements in strength/mass.

Either that or you’d have to fly so far below the radar (really hold back on how much you’re lifting) that it really wouldn’t require all that much of a adaptive response anyway.

Now one thing about CP’s super accumulation program was that he pretty much was trying to get you over trained. He knew full and well that improvement on that high of a frequency, while using anything that even resembled pushing yourself was going to be pretty much impossible. In fact, it was/is actually going to lead to a regression in performance/strength. In this case however, he also states that the rebound (supercompensation) effect once you rest, refuel and give your body the time it needs to recover and adapt to the stress would be worth it.

Finally, “super compensation” is simply a fancy shmancy way of saying adaptation. Super compensation will occur during any training program, be it HIT, HFT, GVT, etc… as long as you are consistently overloading the muscles. It is not unique to two cycle theory.

Good training,

Sentoguy

39

[quote]pat36 wrote:

Sorry to interject. I kind of let this thread go and saw there has been some new enlightening activity. Sure super compensation would work, but it works better if you “train” you body to recover faster. That’s where HFT comes in. Training in a HFT style actually “teaches” the body to recover faster.

I am not sure the mechanism involved, but you fatigue the muscle serveral days in a row, you body compensates eventually by preparing your body for the activity, because it doesn’t want to accumulate fatigue. Then after that you throw in super compensation and you can really get some serious growth.

However, for us older gents, you need more than five days to recover if you have accumulated enough fatigue and that is a major down side to super accumulation. I tried it, sort of, but it took me nine days to recover.
I got more to say, but am running out of time to say it. I have researched the HTMU recruitment theory a bit more. More on that later.
[/quote]

Hi Pat,

As far as HFT teaching the body to recover faster, that may very well be true. I know that I’ve done HFT programs in the past, and do seem to recover rather quickly these days. Once again, I personally am not trying to say that HFT programs aren’t effective or useful.

In fact, I would go as far as saying that one should use the highest frequency possible that still allows them to make steady, continued, and noticeable gains. If you’re a genetic freak and can train the same body part 3 or more times per week, week in and week out (and you’re not a beginner), then by all means, use that frequency.

For most of us though, that’s going to be too frequent a training schedule to push ourselves in the gym and continue making progress.

Does that mean that we should go the traditional HIT route and only train our muscles once every 5 days? Probably not, but once again if someone is getting results on that schedule then they should stick with it.

Good training,

Sentoguy

40

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Basically in a nutshell, that’s two cycle theory.

[/quote]

Curious: where did you get the phrase? I may Google it, I just haven’t heard it refered to as such.

Also, re: your potential problem in the area of HFT, that of “finding it difficult to increase performance significantly” while HFTing–I think that is why Chad is very advocative of using strength programs in between HFT cycles. He wants you to achieve neural activation and then piggyback off that effect using HFT. However, he still says that HFT can give good neural/strength gains. In fact, I’ve noticed personally that the program Perfect 10 seems to result in effortless growth for the specific bodypart more-or-less permanently after you stop doing it. I posit that if you do Perfect 10 for stubborn biceps, you will not need to target them directly for quite a while after.

Re: neural activation between HFT…hence the strength phases of BBNF and such. Also MRT/Singular Workout/etc are great for that type of neural activation.