Natty on Pennies

[Voxel]

@danteism

Kind of. When you’re first starting, the main thing is to get you on the right track with r/p and such. Statics come into play when you’re familiar with the program and can push yourself really to the end.

Ah, so that is the distinction he’s making? Interesting.

@danteism

Yep. If you have the article on hand, feel free to post it and I’ll read through it

It’s the first “rule” in this one,

Forced Growth: A New Way to Build Muscle

@danteism

The two on/one off is a pretty old way of doing DC. You can read about that in more detail in the original cycles for pennies discussion (which you can find for free on an app called scribd). I’m not quite sure if that approach had the exact same layout split and method wise as the current one, so I’d check it out.

Cheers, I’ll see if I can find it!

@danteism

Eventually DC abandoned that style because his clients were having recovery issues and he noticed that dropping to three sessions weekly made them progress faster

I totally get that. These are just details that pique my interest because I know that there are a lot of evolutionary pressures on a “published” program/methodology. And so while there could conceivably be variants of DC (or any other method) that are “superior” with regards to results over a given timeframe those variants only are better when correctly applied by the trainee. Since a lot of people are idiots and always try to “get away” with more, it makes sense to build in a margin of error.

@danteism

We’ll have to remember that your recovery ability increases with training age as well (not as fast as your strength and ability to excert yourself) and, again, we have to ask ourself how much is actually necessary and how much can we realistucally recovery from. If you can go 2 on 1 off there is no stopping you.

Yeah totally. If someone can do that, power to them, and I respect that DC doesn’t feel the need to say that it is a possibility because if he did then sure as shit that’s where most people would start. Give people a span, and they’ll always go to some extreme rather than start in the middle and try to titrate up/down depending on what we are talking about.

@danteism

This is true, but we’ll also have to figure out how much of that is quality work. Is, say 100 good and 140 bad sessions per year better than 150 good and 58 bad sessions? What does the next year look like, how well do you adapt? Really there is no way of knowing what is optimal, and it doesn’t matter.

Indeed, this was mostly in reference to his own articulation of growth phases and I just put the numbers in to calculate the potential.

@danteism

What does the next year look like, how well do you adapt?

Here’s where I’d say it’s important to not be rigid, and this I guess defies any material being easily ingested.

I’m mostly raising these points in an abstract sense because it’s fun to discuss but since it’s so damn easy to use as an example let’s say we have a John Doe type person making good progress on the M-W-F split. Now, there’s a lot to be said for not fucking with something that works, but if John Doe were so inclined he could try four times per week. If progress continues to be as good as before when measured as a quotient of perceived “good” sessions and lifts keep progressing etc. then that should spark more growth in as much time.

John Doe could be his own coach, absent of DC, and when experiencing recovery issues well then that’s the ceiling to dial back from. Let’s say John Doe did continue to have good recover and goes to two-on/one-off and manages to do that for a year, maybe two, and then starts having recovery issues. Well, now the poundages are greater so that makes sense, then he back-tracks to four times weekly. Eventually, he’ll probably settle in to M-W-F, but that doesn’t mean that he has to lock himself in to that. Sure, if he did he runs the absolute minimal risk of burning out so it’s something that has to be weighed in and considered by the individual. Benefit/cost.

Are you following my train of thought?