What Do You Think About Super-Compensation?

[its_just_me]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
On the one hand, when I suggested a progression method that at your twice-per-week schedule per bodypart would have had you taking only two weeks to move up from, for example, 4,4,4,4,5 on first establishing a new weight to 5,5,5,5,5 and thus be ready to move up in weight again, you said this wasn’t fast enough progression for you. That you were afraid that you were gaining faster than this.

Now if so, very good, but if so, then why not put that rate of progression into the bank rather than going for a scheme like this?

Even if you are mistaken and you only match this rate of progression rather than beat it, putting 10 lb (for example) more on the bar every 2 weeks WITHOUT your above scheme would add up to 250-260 lb more on the bar at the end of the year.

I’d understand your trying to think about tricky schemes if you were saying you had tried many things for an extended time, which on review were sensible, yet gains had slowed to a crawl. But from your previous posts that’s not the case.[/quote]

Yeah I like the idea of saving it up better than beating myself up and hoping that I time it right etc. At least if I save it up then that leaves room for error.

I don’t particularly like the complicated stuff, I was just asking to see if there was something I was missing really. Gains are coming nicely (again…now that I’ve had a week off etc), so I don’t even need to worry about it.

250lbs extra on the bar from 5lbs gains per week? I hope it IS as constant as that

[its_just_me]

[quote]stevo_ wrote:
Don’t think i haven’t considered it mate!

Kidding aside, i’m all for cutting edge methods etc, but i don’t think i would have ever go into lifting if i read the stuff thats around now days straight off the bat, would have just seemed way out of my my league in terms of complexity.

The last couple of years or so its just got out of control.

Good luck though.[/quote]

Thanks

I’m the same, if I knew how simple it was years ago, I’d be light years ahead right now. The complicated things just put me off the joys of lifting and seeing the pounds go up. Sometimes I get carried away, but not as much as I used to (since I have a clearer understanding of why I stagnate now).

[its_just_me]

[quote]roybot wrote:
You need to stop thinking in these terms. Nobody can predict how fast they will progress unless they eat properly and train properly. Until you work that out, you’re not going anywhere.

You’re missing the point: the biggest guys got where they are because they focused on adjusting food intake and weight progression as and when required. They didn’t pre-plan supercompensation or whatever you want to call it, because if you are gaining muscular weight, you can be sure that ‘supercompensation’ has taken place. That’s about as simply as I can put it.

Why do you think that the big guys schedule rest days as and when required? It’s not because they fancy a day of chasing tail at the mall. Do you really believe that nutrition + rest + growth isn’t ‘supercompensation’?

Oh, and if you’ve read a book on gaining muscle, and somebody slags off somebody else in the same field, it’s pretty safe to say they don’t have your best interests at heart. More like they want you to buy their next book.

You seem like a sensible guy, so why don’t just train harder and eat more (which is what you’ve been doing), instead of worrying that you could be doing better. As long as you’re making consistent gains, that is all that matters.[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment - the reason why I raised this subject is because I was a bit disappointed with one of the programs I bought. I was hoping to simply get the principle ideas but instead there was a “canned”, do exactly this and that etc type program…along with that supercompensation idea (as the grand finale).

I guess no-one can blame the author really; it’s the public that WANT some magical, 1-2-3, blueprint type program which tells them EXACTLY what to do…rather than just give the principle ideas and tell you to train “instinctively” (because that’s not special, it is too simple and boring LOL).

The other thing that confused me was the fact that it was aimed at people of all training levels, and yet never did it take any of that into account when giving the specific training routines etc. If it was aimed at beginners, then why did it bother with supercompensation? If it was aimed at advanced trainees, then why didn’t it just put accross the principle ideas so that the trainee could adapt it to a routine which he KNOWS works well for himself (since he’s evolved his training to suit him)?

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

eat as much as you can, Strength Training, Bodybuilding & Online Supplement Store - T NATION

[roybot]

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

Thanks for the compliment - the reason why I raised this subject is because I was a bit disappointed with one of the programs I bought. I was hoping to simply get the principle ideas but instead there was a “canned”, do exactly this and that etc type program…along with that supercompensation idea (as the grand finale).

I guess no-one can blame the author really; it’s the public that WANT some magical, 1-2-3, blueprint type program which tells them EXACTLY what to do…rather than just give the principle ideas and tell you to train “instinctively” (because that’s not special, it is too simple and boring LOL).[/quote]

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”. Most bodybuilding literature revolves around this maxim. Unfortunately, very few people want to ‘teach you how to fish’ because they want you to be dependent on their information and their information alone: that way, you’ll be sure to buy their next book

[quote]
The other thing that confused me was the fact that it was aimed at people of all training levels, and yet never did it take any of that into account when giving the specific training routines etc. If it was aimed at beginners, then why did it bother with supercompensation? If it was aimed at advanced trainees, then why didn’t it just put accross the principle ideas so that the trainee could adapt it to a routine which he KNOWS works well for himself (since he’s evolved his training to suit him)?[/quote]

This is something that CT has been trying to make up for with I, Bodybuilder, but when he said that it would be more about principles than a set routine, there was a collective moan from people that were expecting one. What you need to understand is that terms like autoregulation and supercompensation aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s just easier to concentrate on one or the other in order to sell a product.

When you think about it, these concepts have been around from the start - it’s just that now they come in shiny packaging and have new names. Let me give you a simple example: if I planned to do a 20 rep squat workout 3x a week, but three weeks in (due to increased weight on the bar), I felt too drained to continue squatting 3 x a week, I would adjust food intake or recuperation time. Maybe I would cut back to two sessions a week to allow for more recovery time overall.

I have now autoregulated my training. Supercompensation is also at play because I am allowing myself to progress in weight faster than if I’d stayed at 3 sessions a week by removing one session - which automatically gives you more recovery time and should result in more gains than if you’ve stuck with three sessions a week come hell or high water (the squats were just an example; it applies to any routine). Did it matter whether I had a cool name to go with it? Did it matter that I hadn’t done in-depth research into supercompensation, autoregulation etc. beforehand? There is no reason to label and categorize concepts in this way unless you’re trying to invent a revolutionary new workout. And I don’t see a lot of point in that, personally.

Lumping different theories into boxes and basing programs on a single principle is kind of like getting dressed for work and only being concerned with putting your pants on - a lot of important stuff has been left in the closet.

That’s all I have to say.

[its_just_me]

[quote]roybot wrote:
its_just_me wrote:

Thanks for the compliment - the reason why I raised this subject is because I was a bit disappointed with one of the programs I bought. I was hoping to simply get the principle ideas but instead there was a “canned”, do exactly this and that etc type program…along with that supercompensation idea (as the grand finale).

I guess no-one can blame the author really; it’s the public that WANT some magical, 1-2-3, blueprint type program which tells them EXACTLY what to do…rather than just give the principle ideas and tell you to train “instinctively” (because that’s not special, it is too simple and boring LOL).

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”. Most bodybuilding literature revolves around this maxim. Unfortunately, very few people want to ‘teach you how to fish’ because they want you to be dependent on their information and their information alone: that way, you’ll be sure to buy their next book

The other thing that confused me was the fact that it was aimed at people of all training levels, and yet never did it take any of that into account when giving the specific training routines etc. If it was aimed at beginners, then why did it bother with supercompensation? If it was aimed at advanced trainees, then why didn’t it just put accross the principle ideas so that the trainee could adapt it to a routine which he KNOWS works well for himself (since he’s evolved his training to suit him)?

This is something that CT has been trying to make up for with I, Bodybuilder, but when he said that it would be more about principles than a set routine, there was a collective moan from people that were expecting one. What you need to understand is that terms like autoregulation and supercompensation aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s just easier to concentrate on one or the other in order to sell a product.

When you think about it, these concepts have been around from the start - it’s just that now they come in shiny packaging and have new names. Let me give you a simple example: if I planned to do a 20 rep squat workout 3x a week, but three weeks in (due to increased weight on the bar), I felt too drained to continue squatting 3 x a week, I would adjust food intake or recuperation time. Maybe I would cut back to two sessions a week to allow for more recovery time overall.

I have now autoregulated my training. Supercompensation is also at play because I am allowing myself to progress in weight faster than if I’d stayed at 3 sessions a week by removing one session - which automatically gives you more recovery time and should result in more gains than if you’ve stuck with three sessions a week come hell or high water (the squats were just an example; it applies to any routine). Did it matter whether I had a cool name to go with it? Did it matter that I hadn’t done in-depth research into supercompensation, autoregulation etc. beforehand? There is no reason to label and categorize concepts in this way unless you’re trying to invent a revolutionary new workout. And I don’t see a lot of point in that, personally.

Lumping different theories into boxes and basing programs on a single principle is kind of like getting dressed for work and only being concerned with putting your pants on - a lot of important stuff has been left in the closet.

That’s all I have to say.

[/quote]

Thanks for that info

I was coming to the conclusion that it was a lot simpler than many authors make it out to be. One of the things that always “gets me” is the fact that I tend to underestimate how fatigued my CNS really is. I can easily over-do things (overzealous) - can often drag myself to the gym in a crappy state (for weeks) and just push through it LOL. I really need to be more intuitive with my training.

[roybot]

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

Thanks for that info

I was coming to the conclusion that it was a lot simpler than many authors make it out to be. One of the things that always “gets me” is the fact that I tend to underestimate how fatigued my CNS really is. I can easily over-do things (overzealous) - can often drag myself to the gym in a crappy state (for weeks) and just push through it LOL. I really need to be more intuitive with my training.[/quote]

No problem. It’s refreshing to see that you’re so receptive to this. Most people fight tooth and nail to make things as complicated as possible - as if that somehow makes training more effective - and don’t want to hear that it doesn’t have to be that hard.

As you’ve realized, trying to intellectualize things is like getting stuck in a maze and being more concerned with finding all the dead ends instead of trying to find the way out (if you get what I mean).

I really think CT has struck gold with his latest take on training, the only problem is that there are quite a few people who are resistant to change, and some who attempt to embellish or over-analyze what he’s tried to express as simply as possible. In the end, only they can decide whether they want to actually make progress or only appear as if they do.

[its_just_me]

[quote]roybot wrote:
No problem. It’s refreshing to see that you’re so receptive to this. Most people fight tooth and nail to make things as complicated as possible - as if that somehow makes training more effective - and don’t want to hear that it doesn’t have to be that hard.

…just trying to illustrate how a seemingly complicated idea is actually quite simple if you look at it in the right way.

The only problem is that there are quite a few people who are resistant to change…
[/quote]

That’s what I’m trying to work on (to be open-minded to the guys who know their stuff). I’ve learned over the years that the more I’ve learned, the more aware I’ve become of the fact that I’ve actually known very little LOL. The more experienced I’ve become, the more I’ve learned that you have to be VERY selective over who you listen to (ESPECIALLY as regards the internet). If only I had listened to the big guys earlier, instead of seeking out the miracle programs on the net. The more you read that stuff (without experience) the more stubborn/proud you can become (and thus more resiliant to good advice which goes against one’s “philosophies”).

I’m beginning to wonder whether it’s even a good idea for a noob to read books - as apposed to real life good mentors who can keep them on the “straight and narrow” etc.

I was going to say that too, that it depends how you look at a concept (or how experienced you are) as to how “complicated” it is.

[roybot]

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
roybot wrote:
No problem. It’s refreshing to see that you’re so receptive to this. Most people fight tooth and nail to make things as complicated as possible - as if that somehow makes training more effective - and don’t want to hear that it doesn’t have to be that hard.

…just trying to illustrate how a seemingly complicated idea is actually quite simple if you look at it in the right way.

The only problem is that there are quite a few people who are resistant to change…

That’s what I’m trying to work on (to be open-minded to the guys who know their stuff). I’ve learned over the years that the more I’ve learned, the more aware I’ve become of the fact that I’ve actually known very little LOL. The more experienced I’ve become, the more I’ve learned that you have to be VERY selective over who you listen to (ESPECIALLY as regards the internet). If only I had listened to the big guys earlier, instead of seeking out the miracle programs on the net. The more you read that stuff (without experience) the more stubborn/proud you can become (and thus more resiliant to good advice which goes against one’s “philosophies”).

I was going to say that too, that it depends how you look at a concept (or how experienced you are) as to how “complicated” it is.[/quote]

Indeed.