Mathematical Approach to Workouts

Wait wait wait.

Are you saying that performing ONLY heavy partials is more effective than ONLY performing full movements?

Read this article, entitled Optimized Figure Training, Part I:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1524087

The following factors contribute to the effectiveness of your workout, but I wouldn’t know how to combine them into a mathematical “system”:

  1. Total volume (weight x reps)
  2. Force produced in the concentric movement (mass x acceleration)
  3. Time under tension (concentric and eccentric)
  4. Density*
  5. Quality of effort (mental focus, etc.)

*Density CANNOT be described simply as a ratio of total volume to total training time, because force production and time under tension mutually conflict in terms of time.

It’s all quite confusing to put together theoretically, but practically speaking it’s quite simple. To make a workout harder you can…

a) increase: weight, reps, sets, eccentric time, mental focus.

b) decrease: concentric time, rest between sets.

^ Does this seem right?

A Tendo unit.

The one thing I can say re: PFT is it is by far the most effective program I’ve ever used.

An EMG test scientifically proves that heavy partials deliver MORE growth stimulus than much lighter full range reps. U can attack it w/ all the convoluted “science” in the world. Work = Force/Time does NOT apply to weightlifting becuz human movement is NOT in a straight line, its in an arc ( like pattern which requires the use of pi (3.14) and unnecessarily complicates the issue since ur arms/legs aren’t goin to change in length. PFT is just technical enough, just sceintfically sound enough to be practical.

One reason Vince Anello and Paul Anderson were THE best in they’re day (and to this today in alot of ways) are they’re use of heavy partials, they freely admit it. U can make numbers say anything…except more results.

For bench, deadlifts, squats, and overhead presses I usually use a progression chart as guidelines for what weight I use each week (keyword being guideline). It motivates me to see what my lifts could be at 10-12 weeks from now and gives me a good idea of the weight to use. But now and then I won’t follow it exactly and I’ll lift more or less depending how strong I feel that particular day.

My understanding is if any exercise like the benchpress, squats, dips, barbell curls, etc increases 20-30lbs in a couple of months, then the size increase I see will be noticable, given I’m taking in enough calories.

[quote]75mgTren wrote:
The one thing I can say re: PFT is it is by far the most effective program I’ve ever used.

An EMG test scientifically proves that heavy partials deliver MORE growth stimulus than much lighter full range reps. U can attack it w/ all the convoluted “science” in the world. Work = Force/Time does NOT apply to weightlifting becuz human movement is NOT in a straight line, its in an arc ( like pattern which requires the use of pi (3.14) and unnecessarily complicates the issue since ur arms/legs aren’t goin to change in length. PFT is just technical enough, just sceintfically sound enough to be practical.

One reason Vince Anello and Paul Anderson were THE best in they’re day (and to this today in alot of ways) are they’re use of heavy partials, they freely admit it. U can make numbers say anything…except more results.[/quote]

You’re fucking with us, right? Did Paul Anderson use the worst grammar ever in addition to heave partials?

Maybe… Paul was just a freak of nature… it’s not like we have a control group of Paul Andersons waiting in the wings for our next test.

My entire point is how do u know ur most recent work was more effective at stimulating a response w/out numbers to back it up? It’s like a 100 yrd dash runner thinking “well my legs feel like they were worked harder so I must have ran faster” W/out a stopwatch to prove it the hypothetical runner is shooting in dark at best.

It’s either more wgt. in the same amt of time OR more reps in the same amt of time OR same # of reps at the same rate but for a larger amt of time. Why leave growth to chance? Why not make each w/out as effective as humanly possible? As I’ve already stated…all PFT is an organized system of training which makes measuring every w/out easy.

All PFT’s exclusive use of partials does is ensure that the muscle/exercise in question is done w/ as much weight as safely can be done and therefor done w/ maximal intensity. So many lifters act as if growth is some mysterious phantom that is very illusive and only gurus have the answers…<that’s wrong…numbers have the answers, a $4 stopwatch provides those #'s.

All the relative extremely infrequent PFT w/outs do is ensure enough time as elapsed to allow complete recovery. Even w/ steroids overtraining is unavoidable on a fixed training schedule becuz w/ ea. w/out U should be stronger and therefore loading ur system more & more requiring more & more time to recover.

PFT/SCT is the most productive/safest system of strength training. I don’t see an intelligent person could just leave growth, after all they’re time/effort, to chance.

[quote]75mgTren wrote:
My entire point is how do u know ur most recent work was more effective at stimulating a response w/out numbers to back it up? It’s like a 100 yrd dash runner thinking “well my legs feel like they were worked harder so I must have ran faster” W/out a stopwatch to prove it the hypothetical runner is shooting in dark at best.

It’s either more wgt. in the same amt of time OR more reps in the same amt of time OR same # of reps at the same rate but for a larger amt of time. Why leave growth to chance? Why not make each w/out as effective as humanly possible? As I’ve already stated…all PFT is an organized system of training which makes measuring every w/out easy.

All PFT’s exclusive use of partials does is ensure that the muscle/exercise in question is done w/ as much weight as safely can be done and therefor done w/ maximal intensity. So many lifters act as if growth is some mysterious phantom that is very illusive and only gurus have the answers…<that’s wrong…numbers have the answers, a $4 stopwatch provides those #'s.

All the relative extremely infrequent PFT w/outs do is ensure enough time as elapsed to allow complete recovery. Even w/ steroids overtraining is unavoidable on a fixed training schedule becuz w/ ea. w/out U should be stronger and therefore loading ur system more & more requiring more & more time to recover.

PFT/SCT is the most productive/safest system of strength training. I don’t see an intelligent person could just leave growth, after all they’re time/effort, to chance.[/quote]

Maybe you just need practice at measuring your workout. You can buy a metronome for ~$15 and track your tempo. You could even record a metronome “song” and play it on an mp3 player so you don’t bug the shit out of the other gym members.

I always track my rest with my Timex Ironman Triathlon watch. If I need a 3 minute rest, then I’ll set it for 2:50. When it beeps, then I start my set.

I track my workouts in Excel, too. Volume is a simple weight x reps x sets after factoring whether the movement is bilateral/unilateral - and whether the implement is bilatera/unilateral. One final factor comes into play - rating of perceived exertion… that way I can compare disparate exercises.

How about the same amount of weight faster?

Like if you wanted to track your rate of force developement?

Would PFT help me with that?

Or acceleration through the range of motion?

Is there some way that could be devised to determine If that is occurring, rep to rep, or session to session?

Don’t know. I only regurgitate what I read in a $4 book called Power Factor Training I got from Amazon.com. I don’t pretend to completely understand EVERY minute detail but I do know w/out question I am stronger every w/out and therefore I am putting on lean muscle tissue as a result of the strength increase.

This shit ain’t “rocket science”! PFT is not some Harvard/Yale designed training program. Just sceintific application of centuries old physics principles.

I always laugh when I read of some misguided fool jumping from “the conjugate method” to periodization to HIT to volume to god knows what. There is only one way to train intelligently and its PFT/SCT. I’m gonna post a video soon of my next PFT w/out. I’ll be shooting for 36reps w/ 500lbs done in less than minute.

[quote]75mgTren wrote:
Don’t know. I only regurgitate what I read in a $4 book called Power Factor Training I got from Amazon.com. I don’t pretend to completely understand EVERY minute detail but I do know w/out question I am stronger every w/out and therefore I am putting on lean muscle tissue as a result of the strength increase.

This shit ain’t “rocket science”! PFT is not some Harvard/Yale designed training program. Just sceintific application of centuries old physics principles.

I always laugh when I read of some misguided fool jumping from “the conjugate method” to periodization to HIT to volume to god knows what. There is only one way to train intelligently and its PFT/SCT. I’m gonna post a video soon of my next PFT w/out. I’ll be shooting for 36reps w/ 500lbs done in less than minute. [/quote]

This should be amusing.

Yea…I’m waiting for the “fake plates” or “he’s only moving the bar 3 inches” or “I can do that (w/ no video to prove it”. Ur right this should be amusing. It’s so funny to me listening to the exercise physiology geniuses pointing out what’s wrong w/ PFT yet they only repeat the same party line bullshit that hasn’t changed in 40 yrs. It should be amusing. Make sure U post ur vid to slinger.

[quote]75mgTren wrote:
I always laugh when I read of some misguided fool jumping from “the conjugate method” to periodization to HIT to volume to god knows what. There is only one way to train intelligently and its PFT/SCT. I’m gonna post a video soon of my next PFT w/out. I’ll be shooting for 36reps w/ 500lbs done in less than minute. [/quote]

I’m sure we would all rather you just post a pic of yourself now, as well as one 6 months from now.

We could laugh…with…you.

Now, after browsing the PFT book (yeah, I own it…):

[quote]Power Factor Training:
We mention the figure of 10 pounds (mass gained in a year) knowing full well that some readers have the capacity to gain three to four times this amount over a twelve-month period and could quite possibly gain 10 pounds of lean muscle in as little as three workouts.[/quote]

The book also states that all you need to grow 10 lbs of muscle in a year is an extra 16 calories per day:

[quote]
You can get those 16 extra calories a day by taking a bite out of an apple. Yet how may bodybuilders do you know who force-feed themselves hundreds or even thousands of extra calories a day with the mistaken notion that in so doing, they’re hastening the muscle growth process? The logic is almost too simplistic. If you eat more, you’re going to grow faster…but what you’ll be growing is fat.[/quote]

Of course,

Other Power Factor points:

  1. In order to grow 10 pounds of muscle per year, you only need 4 kcals worth of protein (1 gram) beyond your maintenance level.

  2. The most healthful diet for everyone is one of 60% carbs, 25% protein, 15% fats. Listen to the food pyramid for your nutritional advice.

  3. In one week of Power Factor Training, PFT co-author John Little gained 15 lbs after having remained at a bodyweight of 180 lbs for over 10 years. He didn’t alter his diet in any way, his waist size didn’t go up. He then added another 10 lbs of muscle over the next 4 weeks.

  4. Pro bodybuilders don’t use this uber-effective workout method because they would rather train 2x per day (4 hours each workout), 6 days per week. Besides, they spend $20,000-$50,000 per year on steroids.

  1. PFT author Pete Sisco, after injuring his back cleaning and pressing 215 lbs, took a six-week layoff from training. In addition to that injury, he had the flu and was completely inactive. After returning to the gym and preparing for a light workout, he found his overhead press shooting up to a [quote]phenomenal 510 pounds, while his bench press weight shot up to 600 pounds-a full 75 pounds past his previous best![/quote]

Yet I can’t seem to find a picture of this guy anywhere. The book shows gigantic people wearing “Power Factor” t-shirts while striking muscular poses, but doesn’t say that they have actually used the routine.

  1. Even better than partials-only workouts is their new book, Static Contraction Training. Since you don’t even have to move, you can use even more weight, thus building muscle even faster!

The book cites a lot of Mentzer stuff, basically his wet dream on crack- 1 or 2 sets of one exercise per bodypart, taking rest breaks as long as months at a time between your workouts. I think it says somewhere up to 5-6, but I haven’t read it in a while…I’ll find more stuff to pull out if anyone’s interested, but the above is just from a skim.

The book has some good points to it- tackling some myths above toning, muscle turning to fat, isolation exercises/high reps for building definition, training for the pump- but it’s basic, Weight Lifting 101 stuff that is only surprising to newbs- the exact people this book targets with it’s outlandish claims.

I mean, the shit in this book sounds way to good to be true- tons of muscle in months of infrequent work, no change in dietary habits, incredible increases in strength…but in the end you’re just the gym fag stealing all 60 45’s in order to do your amazing 3 inch ROM leg press.

But hey, you’re the one who’s doing it all right.

and ur the gym punk w/ alot of backup saying “please be my friend, I lift the same outdated way U do”. I notice u didn’t post any pics of urself…

[quote]75mgTren wrote:
Don’t know. I only regurgitate what I read in a $4 book called Power Factor Training I got from Amazon.com. I don’t pretend to completely understand EVERY minute detail blah blah blah[/quote]

See, that’s the problem- you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You are just vomiting another man’s thoughts onto this thread. I mean, I bought into that shit back when I was a sophomore in HS, wasted a shitload of time doing it, feel incredibly embarrassed that people saw me doing those ridiculous exercises, want my money and time back, etc…

I believed that tripe because I was a dumb kid who didn’t know any better and had no idea where to look other than askmen/bodybuilding.com for credible information.

I can’t believe anyone with access to this site and especially this forum would buy into this kind of hype, considering Sisco’s only real defense of why actual, successful bodybuilders don’t use PFT is because they would rather shoot up 50 grand worth of anabolics and train 24/7, despite the fact that the PFT routine can slap an easy 15 pounds of muscle onto one of the drug-free authors in as little as 3 workouts, or add an inch to your arms in as little as 3 workouts (you can Google that particular challenge).

Come on, man.

^ Proof that u don’t have to full range reps. If full range reps were a prerequisite for growth then they would have quantitatively gained more muscle than the group who did partials…they didn’t. I wonder why.

What’s the “tripe”? U must do full range reps? U don’t. That u must workout 3x a week? U don’t. That using a simple physics formula is not capable of measuring progress and predicting future growth? It is. PFT is sound, perfect? No, but sound just the same. Sisco never said 5 months between w/outs. He said as long as 12 wks tho.

I guess we’ll see when I post my vid…and U don’t. I currently am around 225lbs at probably 15% bodyfat (I have no way of knowing exactly) at 5’8".

and IF u so experienced then U must be either a competitive bodybuilder OR a competitive powerlifter. I’m sure ur neither.

Back to the OP’s point - stop trying to figure out the perfect plan. It doesn’t exist, but searching for it will lead to paralysis by analysis. You’ll waste time trying to figure out a perfect formula that doesn’t work. If you want progression, follow the simple methods - add weight, add reps, or add density.

Do something simple, like shoot for a setxrep combo like 3x8, then for for 3x9 in the next session, then 3x10, then 3x11. Add 5% weight on and start the setxrep scheme back down at 3x8. Follow this plan and you won’t have to worry about a mathematical formula for determining how much work you did and how effective your training session was.

[quote]75mgTren wrote:
and IF u so experienced then U must be either a competitive bodybuilder OR a competitive powerlifter. I’m sure ur neither. [/quote]

I am neither. I am simply someone educated enough to be able to recognize the smell of bullshit when it wafts through my monitor, as well as someone who can cram enough time into their day to type out the extra ‘y’ and ‘o’ in their ‘you’s’.

Look, I really don’t care whether or not you use the program. I’m just saying that statements like [quote]there is only one way to train intelligently and its PFT/SCT[/quote] is laughably retarded, especially when considering the boatloads of misinformation and hype contained in those “intelligent” books.

Best of luck with the video, but don’t get your hopes up that we will all line up to pat you on the ass after you bench 500 pounds 36 times through a 1 inch ROM.

I own the PFT book myself, I honestly think that Sisco/Little have some intruiging ideas. And honestly I like the concept of being able to monitor whether or not you progressed using a mathmatical formula.

However, there are a few questionable recommendations in the book that I really wish I could ask Sisco or Little directly.

For instance, yeah, the comment about the caloric intake is definitely questionable. I honestly am doubtful that one needs as few calories to grow as the book suggests. Perhaps if you were naturally endomorphic or mesomorphic (put on weight really easily) then yeah, those recommendations might work. But for someone who has a hard time gaining weight (needs to eat like a horse), then you probably wouldn’t gain much from those dietary parameters.

Another one is rep scheme. Sisco/Little suggest that you start out with 2 sets of 20 reps. Now, perhaps this is just at the beginning until you get the hang of the movements, but they never actually tell you to change rep schemes later on down the road. Even if you are lifting extremely heavy weights in that short range of motion, and lifting the weight fast, I would think that this would be too low of a percentage of 1RM to recruit the high threshold motor units (which have the most ability for growth).

Little and Sisco actually mention the “size principle” in the book, but they don’t seem to take into consideration the force/endurance curve or the characteristics of the different types of muscle fibers/motor units.

Now, I understand their logic, and that is simply that in their experiments, people were able to lift the most total weight in the least amount of time using those rep ranges. I just wonder if the method could be improved upon by taking into account the better understanding that we have today concerning the neuromuscular connection and fiber types/characteristics.

I’d also be interested in hearing Little/Sisco’s response to their comment about only needing 50% of 1RM in order to recruit all of the motor units. This is in stark contrast to comments made by people like Waterbury who suggest that that number is actually around 85%.

Finally, in regards to partials. Partials have been around for ages, they’re definitely nothing new. It’s also an interesting concept that Little/Sisco present concerning the lack of importance of ROM. Not saying that I completely buy it, but it’s interesting none-the-less.

For instance, watch videos of a lot of top bodybuilders (and big guys in general) and you’ll notice that a lot of them don’t use a full ROM. For instance watch Ronnie’s vids of him bench pressing or shoulder pressing and you’ll notice that he only uses a partial ROM. His leg press vid is also a good example of an extremely heavy partial ROM exercise.

Of course, he is also using extremely heavy weights and also tends to use a full ROM on other exercises. Still, his chest, shoulder, and quad development don’t seem to be lacking as the result of using a partial ROM.

Once again, I’m not saying that I buy everything in the book, only that it does present some interesting concepts. Love to hear anyone elses thoughts on some of these topics.

Good training,

Sentoguy