if you’re cleaning for the sole reason of doing the overhead pressing portion for shoulder hypertrophy, then I would thoroughly recommend dropping that and moving to DB movements and Smith Machine Presses (nothing wrong with smith machine for shoulder work)… at the very least, pick the bar off a rack to do push presses or standing military presses, thus dropping the clean part
… unless you are working with severely limited equipment and dont have access to that stuff (i.e. home gym)
[quote]nuts wrote:
if you’re cleaning for the sole reason of doing the overhead pressing portion for shoulder hypertrophy, then I would thoroughly recommend dropping that and moving to DB movements and Smith Machine Presses (nothing wrong with smith machine for shoulder work)… at the very least, pick the bar off a rack to do push presses or standing military presses, thus dropping the clean part
… unless you are working with severely limited equipment and dont have access to that stuff (i.e. home gym)[/quote]
I am working with limited (but not severely limited) equipment. I do have DBs, a rack and two bars. One is set up for bench press, and the other for standing OHP. It’s really just a matter of convenience that I’m cleaning it rather than using the rack.
I do standing shoulder presses (as opposed to seated) for the “upper-body squat” benefits. Somewhat for shoulder and upper chest hypertrophy, but also for developing whole-body stiffness/stability between the lat shelf, braced abs, pinched glutes as well as just general shoulder stability.
I then follow it up with high-rep partial laterals and rear raises, which are purely for hypertrophy.
Is it a mistake to approach it that way?
[quote]El Dingo wrote:
How many professional bodybuilders don’t do olympic lifts? There are far more that dont than there are that do. [/quote]
This has been discussed on the site several times. Many, many did, just not today’s pro bodybuilders in their current training.
Chad Waterbury has written about the benefits of explosive lifting probably more than anyone else. Not necessarily due to the CNS activation, but the effects of improved motor unit recruitment.
Also, and this isn’t a knock on Rez whatsoever, but folks have got to understand that Rez is pretty-well set in deciding to train as they did in the '50s and '60s. We’ve known that since his early posts here. Trying to “convince” him to train differently isn’t necessary.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Also, and this isn’t a knock on Rez whatsoever, but folks have got to understand that Rez is pretty-well set in deciding to train as they did in the '50s and '60s. We’ve known that since his early posts here. Trying to “convince” him to train differently isn’t necessary.[/quote]
Chris, just wondering, what’s your take on McCallum’s programs?
It seems most writers around then, who weren’t trying to sell something, focused on the compound movements (and were anti-machine and anti-gimmick). Gironda and Nubret were obvious exceptions.
If my interpretation and memory is correct, the biggest difference seems to be that McCallum prescribed higher reps (3-4x8-12) whereas most everyone else went down the 5x5 route, or heavy triples and singles.
Based on everything else I’ve learned… the bodybuilding rep range “should” do a better job from a hypertrophy standpoint than the others. And compound + isolation (in either order) works well for targeting specific muscle groups. And that as long as strength keeps increasing, 72 hours rest is a good amount of time to recuperate.
Which is really why I’m doing what I’m doing.
Do you think, from a conceptual standpoint, that I’m missing any “really big ideas” that have developed since then?
(I mean, I suppose I could incorporate pump sets at the end, but besides that.)
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Chris, just wondering, what’s your take on McCallum’s programs?[/quote]
As a writer, McCallum was phenomenal. As a coach/trainer/advice-giver-outer, he was consistent about working hard (sometimes harder than you wanted), the importance of eating plenty, and giving priority to the big lifts with the accessory lifts/detail work secondary but not neglected. Those points can’t be debated as being anything other than good advice.
McCallum wrote plenty about 5x5 and the importance of heavier strength/power training. He did also include moderate to higher rep work, but that strength work, and the importance of striving to use more weight in general, was always a foundation.
Trick question. There aren’t many “really big ideas” that have developed in the strength game over the last 40 or 50 years, just different applications of the same old stuff. What’s new? Fat loss via resistance training instead of cardio? High volume, high frequency training supported by copious nutrition? Training with only free weights?
And in any case, you can almost always find examples of all sorts of training methods being productive (everything works… for a while).
We could go back and forth for quite a while citing examples of people who abide by those three principles and countering them with just as many examples of people succeeding with the exact opposite - building muscle outside the “bodybuilder rep range”, progress without isolation exercises, higher frequency/less rest, etc.
This is why it’s important to experiment over the course of your training career. Try this, try that, take notes, pay attention. Don’t fall in love with a method just because it buys you dinner. Love it because it treats you well.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
[quote]El Dingo wrote:
How many professional bodybuilders don’t do olympic lifts? There are far more that dont than there are that do. [/quote]
This has been discussed on the site several times. Many, many did, just not today’s pro bodybuilders in their current training. [/quote]
Why aren’t they performed now??? Because, we know what methods are optimal and what methods are not. Olympic lifting is not. Not one shred of evidence exists to support that claim. You can refer all the articles(Chad Waterbury opinions) that you want. But unless they can be backed by a peer reviewed study, I am not going to believe it. Hypertrophy is accomplished through processes that are unrelated to increased motor unit recruitment. I don’t care what Chad Waterbury says.
Here are a few scholarly journals that support my claims.
http://biologie.univ-mrs.fr/upload/p85/Article1CM.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6744/abs/400576a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6744/abs/400581a0.html
http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/ncb/journal/v3/n11/abs/ncb1101-1009.html
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/283/1/E154.short
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/285/1/E197.short
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/91/8/3024.short
I also did multiple searches along the line of CNS activation and hypertrophy, motor unit recruitment and hypertrophy, etc. and came up with no results. Btw, Increases in CNS activation is going to be facilitated by increases in motor unit recruitment. They work hand in hand because nerves can only transmit a set voltage. More units = more voltage from the CNS.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Chad Waterbury has written about the benefits of explosive lifting probably more than anyone else. Not necessarily due to the CNS activation, but the effects of improved motor unit recruitment.
Also, and this isn’t a knock on Rez whatsoever, but folks have got to understand that Rez is pretty-well set in deciding to train as they did in the '50s and '60s. We’ve known that since his early posts here. Trying to “convince” him to train differently isn’t necessary.[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to change his method of training other than the fact that he had me believe that he is doing cleans for hypertrophy. In fact my own program is set up Upper Pull, Lower Push, Upper Push, Lower Pull which in theory is similar. I have nothing against using compound movements because everyone needs them whatever there goals may be(this statement does not mean that they can address every goal). This entire time I have been under the impression that his reason for doing cleans were because it is part of his program. He never said in his earlier posts that he only did it to set up his shoulder press. After back and forth comments, it was finally said. If this is supposed to be a beginner forum then if someone is making boneheaded programming mistakes then they should be told. Doing cleans with the intent for them to result in hypertrophy is a boneheaded mistake. If someone felt like I was doing something stupid then feel free to tell me.
Also, rather then read Chad’s articles, I decided I would look at his references first and then see how they related to his article (I know pretty nerdy of me).
3 Reasons to Lift Explosively: He uses 1 reference… 1… That one study found that faster contraction speeds results in increased energy expenditure. How does that relate to hypertrophy? Well, one method goes back to some of the articles I posted above, mTOR. mTOR can be regulated by AMPK. AMPK is stiumulated in fatigued states. Decreases in creatine phosphate and ATP stores will stiumlate AMPK. However, stimulating AMPK will actually inhibit mTOR thus causing fiber differentiation rather than hypertrophy. Nothing in that entire study had anything to do with hypertrophy yet it was his only reference…
From Brain to Biceps: 0 references… I would like you to refer back to my comment earlier about Chad Waterbury opinions.
The Secret to Motor Unit Recruitment: 1 Reference. However, this article was not meant to even discuss hypertrophy. Chad summarizes Motor Unit Recruitment which I have no problem with because he does a pretty good job with it. Nothing related to hypertrophy… this article is irrelevant.
Fast to Big: 4 references! The fourth was used in the last article. Summary of motor unit recruitment and was originally printed in 1977. It is accurate but once again, does not relate to hypertrophy. The third article is similar. Discusses maximum voluntary contraction. Maximum voluntary contraction is simple the effect of the CNS on the target muscle. No hypertrophy here either… I could not even find the second reference. Turns out it was printed in 1929. Nice job Waterbury. How long was it before anyone was going to notice that. This article is irrelevant. First article… printed in 1925…
Sorry, but I am absolutely not convinced. Zero scientific evidence to back up those statements.
[quote]El Dingo wrote:
Why aren’t they performed now??? Because, we know what methods are optimal and what methods are not. Olympic lifting is not. Not one shred of evidence exists to support that claim. You can refer all the articles(Chad Waterbury opinions) that you want. But unless they can be backed by a peer reviewed study, I am not going to believe it.[/quote]
Again, plenty of successful competitive bodybuilders have used the Olympic lifts (cleans and snatches) at some point in their training, either as an adjunct to “regular” bodybuilding training or as a dedicated Olympic weightlifting career.
That those exercises aren’t currently popular with many of today’s bodybuilders does not mean they are ineffective. I stated more of my case in this thread:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding/cleans_and_snatches_for_mass
If you want to continue this debate (O-lifts suck for bodybuilding), you should either post in that thread or start another thread about it, rather than hijacking Rez’s thread here.
This would kinda color your overall opinion of his advice, no?
I’m not reading those, as I choose not to invest much more time into this argument which you seem to feel very passionately about.
And again, I thoroughly disagree. That’s fine though. Plenty of people have differing theories about effective training methods. But along these lines, I think it’s pretty boneheaded to declare certain exercises blatantly ineffective and inefficient when there is legitimate evidence to the contrary.
[quote]Also, rather then read Chad’s articles, I decided I would look at his references first and then see how they related to his article (I know pretty nerdy of me).
…
Sorry, but I am absolutely not convinced. Zero scientific evidence to back up those statements[/quote]
Chad Waterbury has his Masters in physiology with a specialization in neurophysiology. Considering that, I’m comfortable accepting what he chooses to write/advise based on his own thoughts and experience, with or without outside references you deem relevant.
Eh, I don’t mind if you hijack my thread. I am interested in the conversation, and I already got my answer.
[quote]nuts wrote:
if you’re cleaning for the sole reason of doing the overhead pressing portion for shoulder hypertrophy, then I would thoroughly recommend dropping that and moving to DB movements and Smith Machine Presses (nothing wrong with smith machine for shoulder work)[/quote]
Whatever you do, don’t fucking do this. Standing barbell overhead press all the way.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]nuts wrote:
if you’re cleaning for the sole reason of doing the overhead pressing portion for shoulder hypertrophy, then I would thoroughly recommend dropping that and moving to DB movements and Smith Machine Presses (nothing wrong with smith machine for shoulder work)[/quote]
Whatever you do, don’t fucking do this. Standing barbell overhead press all the way.[/quote]
IIRC, Professor X said something pretty similar to that awhile ago, as one of the few places where a smith machine is ok.
But I’m going to stick with BB standing OHP for now, with lateral and rear raises. I may throw some DB presses in the evening session, just to get some unilateral training too.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Trick question. There aren’t many “really big ideas” that have developed in the strength game over the last 40 or 50 years, just different applications of the same old stuff. What’s new? Fat loss via resistance training instead of cardio? High volume, high frequency training supported by copious nutrition? Training with only free weights?
And in any case, you can almost always find examples of all sorts of training methods being productive (everything works… for a while).
[…]
This is why it’s important to experiment over the course of your training career. Try this, try that, take notes, pay attention. Don’t fall in love with a method just because it buys you dinner. Love it because it treats you well.[/quote]
Well put.
It’s not so much that I’m opposed to newer ideas, rather, I found something that’s worked for me, and I’m going to continue to use it and tweak it until it stops working for me. Taking a full-body routine, turning it into a split (increasing the training frequency by 24 hours), and upping the volume (by using two-a-days here and there), has improved results for me. It’s also taken quite a few more calories to sustain… something I haven’t quite come to grips with.
There’s a part where I want to abandon what I’m doing, because of the idea that something else might work phenomenally better – say, switching to one of kingbeef’s routines – but I keep holding back. I’m incorporating IDEAS from other routines into my own, but that’s about it. For instance, I’ve found that some of Gironda’s exercises work well for me (drag curls, tricep reverse rope extensions), and some could probably work better (guillotine press, low cable pulls).
[quote]LoRez wrote:
It’s not so much that I’m opposed to newer ideas, rather, I found something that’s worked for me, and I’m going to continue to use it and tweak it until it stops working for me.[/quote]
Cool. I just saw your progress pic. Good work so far, so keep it up.
It’s just that this…
sounds a but like running before you can walk, to some extent. If you break out “fancy” techniques like two a days and funky exercise variations, you run the risk of having slow progress when you “downgrade” to more simple training methods. Just something to keep in mind for down the road.
If it’s getting you where you want to go, that’s fine, of course.
Just don’t forget that plain old barbell curls, rope pressdowns, and flat barbell benching are pretty effective for most people too. Somewhere along the way, you’ll want to spend some time with the most basic-basics (even if Gironda or Reeves said to avoid them), so you know, through experience, if they work or don’t work for you.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
It’s just that this…
sounds a but like running before you can walk, to some extent. If you break out “fancy” techniques like two a days and funky exercise variations, you run the risk of having slow progress when you “downgrade” to more simple training methods. Just something to keep in mind for down the road.[/quote]
I don’t quite follow. At least with the two-a-days. Mainly moving to a hyper-abbreviated program (3-5 lifts) seems to work best for me. I can fit something in over lunch, and again later in the day… versus a single longer training session. The ‘break’ seems to provide enough recovery to work heavier with later sets.
If it’s getting you where you want to go, that’s fine, of course.
Just don’t forget that plain old barbell curls, rope pressdowns, and flat barbell benching are pretty effective for most people too. Somewhere along the way, you’ll want to spend some time with the most basic-basics (even if Gironda or Reeves said to avoid them), so you know, through experience, if they work or don’t work for you.[/quote]
I’m just now starting to put Gironda’s ideas into context. For the most part, he seemed to be very good at sculpting (which makes sense, considering where he was and what he was known for), but less about building strength and power, or even the look of strength and power. Which means whenever I get to the point where I want to specialize on something, Gironda’s a good source.
I just found it interesting that a few months ago, I looked at Gironda and Reeves as inspiration, and now I’ve moved toward Grimek, Park and Farbotnik as ideals.
Which means, I’m gravitating back toward the basics. Press, bench, rows, squats, sldls. Followed by isolation work for arms, shoulders and calves.
Benching is the only thing that’s been giving me trouble, so I’ll have to figure something out. My right elbow just fails on me if there’s any load on it, but I don’t have a clue why, or what to do about it. I have no problems pressing overhead, but horizontally, it just doesn’t want to work.
Any ideas?
(also, did you ever get that 12-rep clean and press with the 75s?)
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
If you break out “fancy” techniques like two a days and funky exercise variations, you run the risk of having slow progress when you “downgrade” to more simple training methods. Just something to keep in mind for down the road.[/quote]
I don’t quite follow. At least with the two-a-days. Mainly moving to a hyper-abbreviated program (3-5 lifts) seems to work best for me. I can fit something in over lunch, and again later in the day… versus a single longer training session. The ‘break’ seems to provide enough recovery to work heavier with later sets.[/quote]
If it’s a schedule issue or whatever, that’s a little different situation. Admittedly, I’m not 100% clear on your current training as I don’t generally follow logs; I just took a quick scan. If it’s basically taking what would be done in one full body session but “dividing it in two”, no prob. For some reason I thought it was, like, one complete full body session and then another complete full body session later.
[quote]Benching is the only thing that’s been giving me trouble, so I’ll have to figure something out. My right elbow just fails on me if there’s any load on it, but I don’t have a clue why, or what to do about it. I have no problems pressing overhead, but horizontally, it just doesn’t want to work.
Any ideas?[/quote]
Injuries aren’t really my strong point, especially over the 'net, but it’s weird that it’s only an issue with horizontal pressing. I’d try playing with more dumbbell work to see if you can find a sweet spot regarding how much elbow tuck to use. Eric Cressey has written a ton about elbow health. Check this article, and maybe wander around his blog to see if you can pluck out anything useful:
I haven’t touched it since the end of August, so nope. I took a run at it, didn’t end up how I hoped, but it was fun.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Admittedly, I’m not 100% clear on your current training as I don’t generally follow logs; I just took a quick scan. If it’s basically taking what would be done in one full body session but “dividing it in two”, no prob. For some reason I thought it was, like, one complete full body session and then another complete full body session later.[/quote]
Wow, that sounds exhausting 
I took the exercises (and set/rep schedule) from the full body program, and just partitioned them over a 3 day split: chest/shoulders/triceps, back/biceps, legs. And then here and there (it was supposed to be more consistent), I’ll just repeat what I did earlier in the day.
A morning/lunch session might be 3 sets bench, 3 sets ohp, 3 sets lateral raises, 4 sets tricep extensions. And in the evening, I’ll repeat the same thing, but lower the weights if necessary to keep the same sets/reps, and maybe some exercise variation.
E.g.
1st session: 3x12 at last session’s weight + 5lbs
2nd session: 3 sets at whatever weight I can hit 8-12 reps
And then 60-72 hours rest, and repeat.
Not too complicated I hope. I’m trying to take advantage of a couple hours recovery so I can get more volume in at a higher intensity. And the split helps with overall work capacity, and gives me a good window for everything to recover. Since I haven’t stalled on anything yet, and the physique changes are happening, I’d say it’s working.
Just manipulating variables, really.
[quote]I’d try playing with more dumbbell work to see if you can find a sweet spot regarding how much elbow tuck to use. Eric Cressey has written a ton about elbow health. Check this article, and maybe wander around his blog to see if you can pluck out anything useful:
I’ll take a look, thanks.
I haven’t touched it since the end of August, so nope. I took a run at it, didn’t end up how I hoped, but it was fun.[/quote]
When I get my OHP numbers up, I might give that a try… you know, just for the challenge.