Why I, BODYBUILDER Isn't as Important as You Think

Training
161

It’s “I, Bodybuilder” similar to your book “High Threshold Muscle Building”?
The principles seem very similar, maybe like an update or refinement of it.

Will be the activation and/or potentiation phases be present?

In this book you recommend from 6 up to 10 reps, However (based on the info collected on this forum) I think that a thing like this will be better:
A. Activation
B. Stimulation MJ: series of 5reps until failure to accelerate at decent rate. Ramping weights.
C1. Stimulation MJ: series of 6-8 reps until failure to accelerate at decent rate. Ramping weights.
C2. Stimulation ISO: series of 8-10 reps until failure to accelerate at decent rate. Ramping weights.
D: 100 reps to end workout???

And last: I read your today post of 100 light reps to end the workout to help recovery. It’s like an activation phase serie, or it’s with the same exercise (ex: If your last exercise was pec fly’s with it).

Thanks.

162

when’s this information going to be released. Also, are you charging for it?

163

^bro im almost at your size and i still consider myself an intermediate trainer. Sure youve been training for yonks but ive obviously done something right in the last 4 years to be able to compare to your physique at 6"3 and being a natural ecto.

I know natural bodybuilders who are barely bigger than me and have been training for 25+ years, does this make them experts or advanced trainers? some maybe, others not a chance in hell! its like when they do a barbell curl i cant figure out whether they are trying to work their bi’s or their back! and then they try to give me advice about on lifting? i think ill do just fine myself!

You can never learn enough about anything, im always trying to expand my knowledge base in bettering myself mentally and physique wise and thus being a better asset to those who come to me seeking advice.

On a related note yes Mr. X is a cocky SOB but you gotta give respect where respect is due! :smiley:

<3 X
haha

164

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
deat wrote:
CT,

This may not be the best thread to post this question/comment, but here goes:

From a physics point of view - A preface to my question

Eccentric: to produce the largest force during the eccentric/negative portion of a given lift, the speed needs to approach zero

Concentric: to produce the largest force possible the lifter needs to have the velocity be close to infinitymove, the more friction can help with the lowering.

So I do recommend controlling the first portion, but not slow it down too much.[/quot

Transition (turnaround): To create the largest force on the muslces (via increasing the magnitude of the impulse) the lifter needs to have the largest possible eccentric speed, then in an infitely small timeframe transition into the concentric at an infite speed

During the “perfect rep” I have seen it mentioned that the “last 3-4 inches of the eccentric need to be very rapid”, are there any recomendations regarding the earlier portion of the eccentric?

That was the recommendation in my latest book… first 3 thirds of the eccentric phase is in control (not too slow) and the last third is faster (but not loose).

The slow eccentric theory is just that, a theory. Friction between muscle fibers, collagen, scar tissue within the muscle, etc. facilitate the eccentric phase. And the slower you e]

Thanks for the reply CT.

From my perspective the slow eccentric theory is over emphasized, as the necessary force produced by the protagonist decreases in this order:

Rapid transition between Ecc. and Con. < Concentric < Static < Eccentric < Free fall

Does anyone have any idea/studies of the magnitude of this “muscle friction”? and does it effect the ecc. and con. in the same manner?

165

Intramuscular friction helps during the eccentric, but makes the concentric less efficient.

166

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
deat wrote:Does anyone have any idea/studies of the magnitude of this “muscle friction”? and does it effect the ecc. and con. in the same manner?

Intramuscular friction helps during the eccentric, but makes the concentric less efficient.[/quote]

That makes sense.

CT, it has been said many times to date that utilizing all of the techniques outlined in HTH causes large amounts of microtrauma/soreness ect. Have any athletes experienced joint and/or connective tissue issues ? If so, did you decrease volume or frequency of training, or did autoregulation address this?

167

Funny, there are countless posts bashing Waterbury.

Isnt this very close to what Chad was promoting in his “huge in a hurry” program. Perform both movements as fast as possible, as soon as you feel your reps begin to slow, end the set.

“This info is especially true when it comes to speed. Speed is positively correlated with force. To get the highest speed, you need the highest force. To get the highest force, you must recruit as many motor units as possible. There’s absolutely no way you can lift a barbell faster by recruiting fewer motor units. Moreover, the faster a barbell is moving, the more motor units you’re recruiting.-C.W.”

Waterbury promotes it and it is garbage
C.T. promotes it and it is gold

-no offense to C.T. intended,

168

[quote]GJA_BOSTON wrote:
Funny, there are countless posts bashing Waterbury.

Isnt this very close to what Chad was promoting in his “huge in a hurry” program. Perform both movements as fast as possible, as soon as you feel your reps begin to slow, end the set.

“This info is especially true when it comes to speed. Speed is positively correlated with force. To get the highest speed, you need the highest force. To get the highest force, you must recruit as many motor units as possible. There’s absolutely no way you can lift a barbell faster by recruiting fewer motor units. Moreover, the faster a barbell is moving, the more motor units you’re recruiting.-C.W.”

Waterbury promotes it and it is garbage
C.T. promotes it and it is gold

-no offense to C.T. intended, [/quote]

well i have a few items that I could point out that CT approached differently but I’ll sum it up this way instead:
Even if they were the same CT didn’t just throw something over the wall and disappear to go train movie stars. Instead CT sticks around to answer questions. So when we go “huh? don’t get it” CT posts fabulous replies to clear it up. CT’s strength is is the clean up as well as the delivery.

So the end result is far more than an article and we learn far more thus understand far more.

169

Even though that is one component that is similar there are numerous differences in their training. Even within that one component, speed, there are several differences. CT’s emphasizes the turnaround at the stretch reflex more than simply speed and he does not necessarily terminate the set when the reps slow. When the reps slow you are still trying to apply as much force as possible even though it won’t look like the bar speed is very high.

And I am in no way bashing CW, just stating some differences in their training methods.

170

So I heard hints of CNS activation and how to hit your HTMUs most effectively by activating them in the little article and video letting us know of the coming IBB greatness. So my real question, CT, is that will IBB show us how to effectively use eccentric and isometric excercises to activate our HTMUs and how we should plan eccentric and isometric excercises?

171

It is amazing to me how we are now utilizing a basic law of physics (Newton’s second law of motion) for Bodybuilding purposes. It does make sense in all essence of it that your body will grow in response to the greatest force that is applied to it, which in turns meaning the rapid redirection of movement in the negative portion to the concentric portion and continuing that force through that portion of the movement.

I anticipate if this strategy holds true that we may be striving to find the weight that we can produce the maximum amount of force through acceleration then accelerating the heavier weights as there is actually less force production. The only problem with my theory is that with greater speeds comes less control and that with too much force production you may be at a much higher risk of injury. Its a risk/reward balance and the best way to avoid this is to bring up your weaknesses that could prohibit maximum force production and control.

172

[quote]GJA_BOSTON wrote:
Funny, there are countless posts bashing Waterbury.
[/quote]

LOL

There are countless comments from Waterbury bashing all of bodybuilding.

173

CT, just curious as to what your thoughts on tempo reps currently are, based on your new knowledge and experiences regarding the perfect rep? Just asking as some of your older work prescribes controlled tempo exercises. Currently doing the specialized HSS-100 for the back while I recover from a mild hamstring strain, and I was trying to work out how to engage the accelerated lifting principles into it, especially when a 303 tempo is prescribed. Thanks.

174

[quote]Rek wrote:
GJA_BOSTON wrote:
Funny, there are countless posts bashing Waterbury.

Isnt this very close to what Chad was promoting in his “huge in a hurry” program. Perform both movements as fast as possible, as soon as you feel your reps begin to slow, end the set.

“This info is especially true when it comes to speed. Speed is positively correlated with force. To get the highest speed, you need the highest force. To get the highest force, you must recruit as many motor units as possible. There’s absolutely no way you can lift a barbell faster by recruiting fewer motor units. Moreover, the faster a barbell is moving, the more motor units you’re recruiting.-C.W.”

Waterbury promotes it and it is garbage
C.T. promotes it and it is gold

-no offense to C.T. intended,

well i have a few items that I could point out that CT approached differently but I’ll sum it up this way instead:
Even if they were the same CT didn’t just throw something over the wall and disappear to go train movie stars. Instead CT sticks around to answer questions. So when we go “huh? don’t get it” CT posts fabulous replies to clear it up. CT’s strength is is the clean up as well as the delivery.

So the end result is far more than an article and we learn far more thus understand far more.
[/quote]

that’s a really good post.

175

If you watch the video of CT and then compare with what Waterbury is talking about in terms of speed, you will see they are not talking about the same thing.

176

Because at quite high percent 1RM, regardless of working as hard as possible every inch of the way and particularly in the launch to push the weight as hard and fast as possible, the speed will not be that great, not as fast as what Waterbury is talking about.

(If it were, then the percent 1RM could not have been at all close to maximal.)

177

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Because at quite high percent 1RM, regardless of working as hard as possible every inch of the way and particularly in the launch to push the weight as hard and fast as possible, the speed will not be that great, not as fast as what Waterbury is talking about.

(If it were, then the percent 1RM could not have been at all close to maximal.)[/quote]

Bill, in Waterbury’s book he states that you have to “attempt to move the weight” as fast as possible.

So I am getting from him that he is not advocating speed in lifting, but exerting as much acceleration as possible to produce the most force, regardless of how fast the weight moves in reality.

So how would that differ from what CT is saying? (still slightly confused on the differences here)

178

True, CW has said that you need to move the weight as fast as possible, not “fast”. Speed will obviously be inverse to the load. Anyways, I think I BB will be great, it will bring a lot of great concepts from many necks of the lifting wood together for everyone. This will serve as a great reminder for the experienced or as (hopefully) a good lesson for those who are new to the iron or have not been fortunate to have good mentors or trainers.

179

[quote]Ren wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Because at quite high percent 1RM, regardless of working as hard as possible every inch of the way and particularly in the launch to push the weight as hard and fast as possible, the speed will not be that great, not as fast as what Waterbury is talking about.

(If it were, then the percent 1RM could not have been at all close to maximal.)

Bill, in Waterbury’s book he states that you have to “attempt to move the weight” as fast as possible.

So I am getting from him that he is not advocating speed in lifting, but exerting as much acceleration as possible to produce the most force, regardless of how fast the weight moves in reality.

So how would that differ from what CT is saying? (still slightly confused on the differences here)[/quote]

Ren, while some of the concepts are similar, their set/rep schemes are different. CW says to stop the set once you slow or lose form and target a certain TOTAL reps. CT however has gotten at having an actual set/rep scheme that you shoot for; if you finish the last set strong you increase the weight and do another. You keep doing sets until the last rep of your set slows, even if you haven’t reached the prescribed number of sets.

180

[quote]Ren wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Because at quite high percent 1RM, regardless of working as hard as possible every inch of the way and particularly in the launch to push the weight as hard and fast as possible, the speed will not be that great, not as fast as what Waterbury is talking about.

(If it were, then the percent 1RM could not have been at all close to maximal.)

Bill, in Waterbury’s book he states that you have to “attempt to move the weight” as fast as possible.

So I am getting from him that he is not advocating speed in lifting, but exerting as much acceleration as possible to produce the most force, regardless of how fast the weight moves in reality.

So how would that differ from what CT is saying? (still slightly confused on the differences here)[/quote]

Maybe you should stop focusing on the differences and focus on the similarities. Jeez.