Switching the Stimulus and Variation

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
In other words, for the bodybuilding “purist” - as long as an exercise works the target muscle and you are progressing with it without imbalance, keep it in. [/quote]

It sounds easy, but it can be really tricky to tell an imbalance (at least until it leads to an injury). Especially if you’re doing the same thing all the time.

Thats why I personally switch up at certain intervals - just to make that imbalances don’t occur, or that I spot them if they do[/quote]

Interesting (seriously) - can you give examples of what exercises you regularly switch up to prevent imbalances? Or of what ones often go unnoticed?

Off the top of my head posture is probably one of the main ones (the old caveman look lol).

Do you have a background in sports physiotherapy/personal trainer?

22

I seldom switch exercises. I think the only thing you need to change is the “total expressed force” (TEF) and it needs to be higher for every workout where the goal is growth until you can’t recover from it. Then recharge and repeat the method with slightly higher TEF/cycle. This way you will always be progressively demanding more from your body.

Want to emphasize a different muscle in the movement pattern? Switch the exercise (for example swithing from bench press to standing press).

Test for imbalances through strength tests and mobility tests.

23

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
In other words, for the bodybuilding “purist” - as long as an exercise works the target muscle and you are progressing with it without imbalance, keep it in. [/quote]

It sounds easy, but it can be really tricky to tell an imbalance (at least until it leads to an injury). Especially if you’re doing the same thing all the time.

Thats why I personally switch up at certain intervals - just to make that imbalances don’t occur, or that I spot them if they do[/quote]

Interesting (seriously) - can you give examples of what exercises you regularly switch up to prevent imbalances? Or of what ones often go unnoticed?

Off the top of my head posture is probably one of the main ones (the old caveman look lol).

Do you have a background in sports physiotherapy/personal trainer?[/quote]

No background as a PT or physio directly but have worked with both for some years since I have been training since in school (high school for you Americans ;-)) and college due to sports.

I was a football (soccer for you Americans, the round ball, not the oval LOL) so my legs have always dominated however lousy genetics means I have underdeveloped calves and training always emphasize on strong glutes and hams (glute-ham raise was a particular favorite of my college coach). Squats is still my strongest routine after all those years.

Now, when I got into lifting after studies and soccer “career” then these imbalances start to take their toll - as I’ve previously mentioned, imbalances may need some time to manifest.

For lower body, IT Band Syndrome has plagued me for a long time, as a result of weak and underdeveloped hip adductors and my calves are lagging.

Changing it up means that I add in a routine at the hip adductor machine (yes, the pussy machine girls always use, but I’ve found it helps) once every 2 weeks to train the adductors, apparently squats don’t fire mine enough, despite a religious routine legs day once a week.
I also add in extra pylometric calf routines on one of my rest days once or twice a month (I do a 5-day bodypart split: back/chest/legs/rest/shoulders/arms/rest, but legs day only have the time to do 1 routine for calves).

I’ve also had periods where I switched my shoulder day training up to focus on more posterior deltoid exercises as I personally felt they were (for me) more difficult to activate using the standard compound exercises.

My training partner (who is considerably older and has been in serious lifting for 11 years) has also had great success when switching up his chest routine after reading BBB’s thread.

24

No time to sift through and read, but I started the post and appreciate what you both have to say. I’ll be reading and commenting at a later time. Subscribe so that we can get back to each other. Good conv and points, Cheers.

25

nice thread.

To add my cents here:

you can change a progamm quantitative (sets,reps etc) or qualitative (movement).
there are many world examples like in weight lifting that holding to a staple of exericses and just adjusting volume is fine. Also pavel is in that line.

Nevertheless its wise to regard a new exercise not as a “confusion” but as a new demand if the body is NOT accostumed to it. Its just also a form of a more demanding stimulus-because the body ist not accustomed to it.
Many will have made that experience when trying out a new exercise never done in this fashion. and progress ups again.
Of course don�´t forget the intra/intermusc. ccordination when learning a new movement but in more intermediat trainees that doesn�´t this neuronal adaption doesn�´t last a bunch of weeks like when beginning weight training.

Its perhaps not neccesarry to switch movements to excess but its just a easy way to provide a new stimulus instead of switching and flipping around rep schemens and volume. Its more foolproove.

To add some input how i vary my programms:

Its a mix what already has been mentioned:

I am in strong favour of HLM programms with deloads and intensification build in.

Phase I: Accumulation:
H: 3x3-5 reps 3min rest
L:2x15 reps 1 min rest
M: 3x8-10 2 min rest.

I use for each muscle group a different exercises on the 3 days. In general this ones who also ephasize the HLM format. So like chest:
Heavy: Bench press
Light: dumbbell bench
medium: decline bench

Just doing 1 exercise on all 3 days also worked-but this way its just more fun.

When stalling i cut back to 80% of my working weights and only one set. Next week 90% and the 3rd week 100%. then the second phase begin: The exercises remain:

PhaseII: Intensification. Wokring up to one heavy top set.
H: 1x5
L:1x15
M:1x10

When stalling on this format the whole cycle (Phase I and II) would have last 11 till 15 weeks. So approx 3 months.

now i switch my exercises out completely cause i regard 3 months of milking them out as enough.

now when the new exercise selection is made i increase the volume again and train 2 weeks quite light to provide a deload again. in the 3rd week i try to set Prs with the nex exercises again:
PHASEI starts new.

So summed up:

Phase I : HLM Accumulation Sets scross
Deload I: One set 80% of the weight used.Ramp up to 100% in 3 weeks
Phase II: HLM Intensification: One heavy set
Deload II: Flip exercises increase in volume and searching for Prs in week 3.
PHASE I:Start of week 3

cheers

PS:
All exercises used are compounds with barbell or dumbbells or cables.
Only isos are mady for tric on L and M day.

26

[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
In other words, for the bodybuilding “purist” - as long as an exercise works the target muscle and you are progressing with it without imbalance, keep it in. [/quote]

It sounds easy, but it can be really tricky to tell an imbalance (at least until it leads to an injury). Especially if you’re doing the same thing all the time.

Thats why I personally switch up at certain intervals - just to make that imbalances don’t occur, or that I spot them if they do[/quote]

Interesting (seriously) - can you give examples of what exercises you regularly switch up to prevent imbalances? Or of what ones often go unnoticed?

Off the top of my head posture is probably one of the main ones (the old caveman look lol).

Do you have a background in sports physiotherapy/personal trainer?[/quote]

No background as a PT or physio directly but have worked with both for some years since I have been training since in school (high school for you Americans ;-)) and college due to sports.

I was a football (soccer for you Americans, the round ball, not the oval LOL) so my legs have always dominated however lousy genetics means I have underdeveloped calves and training always emphasize on strong glutes and hams (glute-ham raise was a particular favorite of my college coach). Squats is still my strongest routine after all those years.

Now, when I got into lifting after studies and soccer “career” then these imbalances start to take their toll - as I’ve previously mentioned, imbalances may need some time to manifest.

For lower body, IT Band Syndrome has plagued me for a long time, as a result of weak and underdeveloped hip adductors and my calves are lagging.

Changing it up means that I add in a routine at the hip adductor machine (yes, the pussy machine girls always use, but I’ve found it helps) once every 2 weeks to train the adductors, apparently squats don’t fire mine enough, despite a religious routine legs day once a week.
I also add in extra pylometric calf routines on one of my rest days once or twice a month (I do a 5-day bodypart split: back/chest/legs/rest/shoulders/arms/rest, but legs day only have the time to do 1 routine for calves).

I’ve also had periods where I switched my shoulder day training up to focus on more posterior deltoid exercises as I personally felt they were (for me) more difficult to activate using the standard compound exercises.

My training partner (who is considerably older and has been in serious lifting for 11 years) has also had great success when switching up his chest routine after reading BBB’s thread.[/quote]

Thanks for that detailed post.

If you don’t mind, what sort of numbers were you putting up when the imbalances started?

27

[quote]science wrote:
nice thread.

To add my cents here:

you can change a progamm quantitative (sets,reps etc) or qualitative (movement).
there are many world examples like in weight lifting that holding to a staple of exericses and just adjusting volume is fine. Also pavel is in that line.

Nevertheless its wise to regard a new exercise not as a “confusion” but as a new demand if the body is NOT accostumed to it. Its just also a form of a more demanding stimulus-because the body ist not accustomed to it.
Many will have made that experience when trying out a new exercise never done in this fashion. and progress ups again.
Of course don�??�?�´t forget the intra/intermusc. ccordination when learning a new movement but in more intermediat trainees that doesn�??�?�´t this neuronal adaption doesn�??�?�´t last a bunch of weeks like when beginning weight training.

Its perhaps not neccesarry to switch movements to excess but its just a easy way to provide a new stimulus instead of switching and flipping around rep schemens and volume. Its more foolproove.

To add some input how i vary my programms:

Its a mix what already has been mentioned:

I am in strong favour of HLM programms with deloads and intensification build in.

Phase I: Accumulation:
H: 3x3-5 reps 3min rest
L:2x15 reps 1 min rest
M: 3x8-10 2 min rest.

I use for each muscle group a different exercises on the 3 days. In general this ones who also ephasize the HLM format. So like chest:
Heavy: Bench press
Light: dumbbell bench
medium: decline bench

Just doing 1 exercise on all 3 days also worked-but this way its just more fun.

When stalling i cut back to 80% of my working weights and only one set. Next week 90% and the 3rd week 100%. then the second phase begin: The exercises remain:

PhaseII: Intensification. Wokring up to one heavy top set.
H: 1x5
L:1x15
M:1x10

When stalling on this format the whole cycle (Phase I and II) would have last 11 till 15 weeks. So approx 3 months.

now i switch my exercises out completely cause i regard 3 months of milking them out as enough.

now when the new exercise selection is made i increase the volume again and train 2 weeks quite light to provide a deload again. in the 3rd week i try to set Prs with the nex exercises again:
PHASEI starts new.

So summed up:

Phase I : HLM Accumulation Sets scross
Deload I: One set 80% of the weight used.Ramp up to 100% in 3 weeks
Phase II: HLM Intensification: One heavy set
Deload II: Flip exercises increase in volume and searching for Prs in week 3.
PHASE I:Start of week 3

cheers

PS:
All exercises used are compounds with barbell or dumbbells or cables.
Only isos are mady for tric on L and M day.

[/quote]

Interesting post. I’ll always maintain that diet comes first when it seems like things have stalled, but obviously like above ^ there are things to do to make gains come more smoothly.

The thing that interests me is what you said about changing the exercise as being one of the easiest/foolproof ways of periodization. Never thought about it in that way before. One good thing is that it acts like a deload because there is an adaptation period (where lessor loads are used)…and naturally, the trainee would increase volume to compensate.

For me personally, these are constants I’ve done over the years (good things I’ve fallen back on)

  1. When doing an exercise, do it often enough (e.g. every 5-8 days). Progress on exercises for me always slows if I did say barbell bench press on day 1, then dumbbell bench press on day 5, then back to barbell bench press on day 9. So if I introduce a new exercise, it always replaces something (unless volume is moderate with the new exercise).

  2. I need to do a rep range for a decent amount of time to “milk it”. I don’t seem to progress when switching rep schemes every session (unless it was not far different from the previous workout, like from 6 reps to 8 reps/set). The worst culprit would be doing high reps on an exercise, then doing low reps with it next session (seems to make me much weaker?) Also, if you haven’t adapted to a rep range for some time, there is no “shock effect” when you change to a different rep/set scheme - like keeping to 3-5 reps/set for several weeks then switching to 8-10 reps/set makes you “blow” up (but not if you did it alternating every single session…there’s no proper adaptation IMO)

What does work for me:

  1. Keeping things constant each cycle, but changing parameters on each new cycle. Example - my cycles usually last anywhere from 5+ weeks before built up fatigue/“staleness” sets in. At this point I’ll usually pull back in some way (e.g. deload by 15-20% and do a volume phase, then work the intensity back up again while reducing volume). Also, on exercises that don’t seem to want to co-operate, swap them out with new ones to do consistently.

  2. Every few cycles, would have a few days off per week (if feeling very unmotivated and drive is just not there etc) until feeling rejuvenated again. Often-times though, most people do this instinctively anyway, or life gets in the way (over 3-4 months most probably miss a few sessions)

28

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]science wrote:
nice thread.

To add my cents here:

you can change a progamm quantitative (sets,reps etc) or qualitative (movement).
there are many world examples like in weight lifting that holding to a staple of exericses and just adjusting volume is fine. Also pavel is in that line.

Nevertheless its wise to regard a new exercise not as a “confusion” but as a new demand if the body is NOT accostumed to it. Its just also a form of a more demanding stimulus-because the body ist not accustomed to it.
Many will have made that experience when trying out a new exercise never done in this fashion. and progress ups again.
Of course don�??�??�?�´t forget the intra/intermusc. ccordination when learning a new movement but in more intermediat trainees that doesn�??�??�?�´t this neuronal adaption doesn�??�??�?�´t last a bunch of weeks like when beginning weight training.

Its perhaps not neccesarry to switch movements to excess but its just a easy way to provide a new stimulus instead of switching and flipping around rep schemens and volume. Its more foolproove.

To add some input how i vary my programms:

Its a mix what already has been mentioned:

I am in strong favour of HLM programms with deloads and intensification build in.

Phase I: Accumulation:
H: 3x3-5 reps 3min rest
L:2x15 reps 1 min rest
M: 3x8-10 2 min rest.

I use for each muscle group a different exercises on the 3 days. In general this ones who also ephasize the HLM format. So like chest:
Heavy: Bench press
Light: dumbbell bench
medium: decline bench

Just doing 1 exercise on all 3 days also worked-but this way its just more fun.

When stalling i cut back to 80% of my working weights and only one set. Next week 90% and the 3rd week 100%. then the second phase begin: The exercises remain:

PhaseII: Intensification. Wokring up to one heavy top set.
H: 1x5
L:1x15
M:1x10

When stalling on this format the whole cycle (Phase I and II) would have last 11 till 15 weeks. So approx 3 months.

now i switch my exercises out completely cause i regard 3 months of milking them out as enough.

now when the new exercise selection is made i increase the volume again and train 2 weeks quite light to provide a deload again. in the 3rd week i try to set Prs with the nex exercises again:
PHASEI starts new.

So summed up:

Phase I : HLM Accumulation Sets scross
Deload I: One set 80% of the weight used.Ramp up to 100% in 3 weeks
Phase II: HLM Intensification: One heavy set
Deload II: Flip exercises increase in volume and searching for Prs in week 3.
PHASE I:Start of week 3

cheers

PS:
All exercises used are compounds with barbell or dumbbells or cables.
Only isos are mady for tric on L and M day.

[/quote]

Interesting post. I’ll always maintain that diet comes first when it seems like things have stalled, but obviously like above ^ there are things to do to make gains come more smoothly.

The thing that interests me is what you said about changing the exercise as being one of the easiest/foolproof ways of periodization. Never thought about it in that way before. One good thing is that it acts like a deload because there is an adaptation period (where lessor loads are used)…and naturally, the trainee would increase volume to compensate.

For me personally, these are constants I’ve done over the years (good things I’ve fallen back on)

  1. When doing an exercise, do it often enough (e.g. every 5-8 days). Progress on exercises for me always slows if I did say barbell bench press on day 1, then dumbbell bench press on day 5, then back to barbell bench press on day 9. So if I introduce a new exercise, it always replaces something (unless volume is moderate with the new exercise).

  2. I need to do a rep range for a decent amount of time to “milk it”. I don’t seem to progress when switching rep schemes every session (unless it was not far different from the previous workout, like from 6 reps to 8 reps/set). The worst culprit would be doing high reps on an exercise, then doing low reps with it next session (seems to make me much weaker?) Also, if you haven’t adapted to a rep range for some time, there is no “shock effect” when you change to a different rep/set scheme - like keeping to 3-5 reps/set for several weeks then switching to 8-10 reps/set makes you “blow” up (but not if you did it alternating every single session…there’s no proper adaptation IMO)

What does work for me:

  1. Keeping things constant each cycle, but changing parameters on each new cycle. Example - my cycles usually last anywhere from 5+ weeks before built up fatigue/“staleness” sets in. At this point I’ll usually pull back in some way (e.g. deload by 15-20% and do a volume phase, then work the intensity back up again while reducing volume). Also, on exercises that don’t seem to want to co-operate, swap them out with new ones to do consistently.

  2. Every few cycles, would have a few days off per week (if feeling very unmotivated and drive is just not there etc) until feeling rejuvenated again. Often-times though, most people do this instinctively anyway, or life gets in the way (over 3-4 months most probably miss a few sessions)[/quote]

Good points!

-Regarding the point with exercises:
Well you must also take in account the different LOADS you use with different exercises. going for 10 reps on dumbbell press is way a different load than going for 10 reps on incline barbell press. The exercises manipulate the load too this way.
See DC for example-depending on the exercise rotation you would get a wave pattern of different loads too-becasue of the wide variety of exercises.
Also Dante had the problem you mentioned when rotating too much exercises: Stalleness.

On the other side you can also overthink this HLM style and may design a HEAVY HLM cycle (in point of exercises) and a LIGHT HLM cycle. But thats getting nasty…

  • you are right regarding the “shock” when getting from 3 reps to 8 in the next cycle. That will be kind of a linear periodization model.

In my case that doesn´t work. I need the different rep schemes on the different days. i also used to maintain the reps and only adjust the weight (like 80% for medium day or whatever) but that didn´t worked out at all what bothered me.
i try to provide the “shock” from going from sets across to ramped sets.
thats my “trick”. Also it would be possible to cut the reps in half-but that would results in too similar rep schemes.

cheers

29

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

Thanks for that detailed post.

If you don’t mind, what sort of numbers were you putting up when the imbalances started?[/quote]

I was weighing a puny 176lbs but squats were maxing out at close to 315lbs (for 6 reps, I didn’t and don’t really count for 1RM weights).

Typical of soccer training (was barely 16 months out of college back then) where training was crossfit-ish circuit-training TBT style with alot of pylometric exercises (good for general fitness but retarded for muscle building) and diet wasn’t protein heavy.

When I think back to those days I realize how screwed up that training gets you, my upper body was puny by T-Nation standards, LOL.

30

Btw, I agree with many of the points here.
Its true that you should always look to switch up your diet before you switch up your training - many people assume that if they need to eat 3000 cals to grow at 160lbs they can continue eating those 3000 cals at 180 or 190lbs and still continue the growth. Which is wrong.

However, assuming diet is in check switching up the training (as per science’s great post) can also stimulate growth particularly if you have reached a plateau in a certain exercise…

31

Wow, great insight. I love the forum for this exact reason. So many opinions, views and ways of looking at things that I never thought or would have thought of. I think “Periodization” or rather the planning and organization of training is an art.

Can we maybe here some views on more specific goals appropriately? I mean lets say a protocol strictly for size? or specifically for strength? an equal blend? I think it’s important for people who post suggestions to remind us of their goals. Anyways, look forward to your comments, cheers!

32

As for goals and size - it’s important not to make too much of a distinction between strength/size because you won’t get much bigger without getting much stronger. Is a 3 rep max better than a 6 rep max? Do you suddenly grow muscles and stop getting stronger when doing 5-8 reps compared to 3-5 reps?

When people take steroids, what’s one of the first things they notice? Their strength goes through the roof. People underestimate the amount of strength needed for a certain size because they spend too much time pumping muscles and getting what could be described as a temporary “local tissue swelling effect”.

There are exceptions to this like on bodyparts that have the capacity for high volume AND load (e.g. traps/legs/back). These respond well to higher volume (or as some would call it, pump work)…think “widow makers”.

Having said that, yes there are sports where more strength is needed relative to size, but the funny thing is that it takes forethought in their training style to do this (e.g. very low TUT). Growth is a side effect they consciously have to minimise lol.

I believe that bodybuilding is pretty straight forward. It’s not easy, and there’s far too much crap out there to confuse people, but once you learn the fundamentals it’s pretty clear cut.

9 times out of 10, when you’re at a strength sticking point (so muscle growth isn’t going to be happening), you push your bodyweight up and as if by magic you’re stronger/bigger :wink: It couldn’t be more simple, but so many miss the mark or over-complicate matters.

It’s good to have a “baseline”. A type of training that you do most of the time because it works most of the time. Then when really needed, alter things (e.g. exercises/volume/intensity) either permanently if it works long term, or temporarily if it helps further your baseline training.

So my form of periodization would not be having sets/reps schemes all over the place, I’d rather take a middle road approach, and tweak when needed. E.g. I wouldn’t do 3-5 reps for chest “strength” on Monday, then 12-15 reps for chest “growth” on Friday…I’d do somewhere in-between, consistently, like 5-8 reps. Then as fatigue builds up/progress slows over the weeks, that’s when I’d tweak it (e.g. higher volume and lower intensity for a while until “recharged”)

But that’s just my opinion/experience ^

33

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
As for goals and size - it’s important not to make too much of a distinction between strength/size because you won’t get much bigger without getting much stronger. Is a 3 rep max better than a 6 rep max? Do you suddenly grow muscles and stop getting stronger when doing 5-8 reps compared to 3-5 reps?

When people take steroids, what’s one of the first things they notice? Their strength goes through the roof. People underestimate the amount of strength needed for a certain size because they spend too much time pumping muscles and getting what could be described as a temporary “local tissue swelling effect”.

There are exceptions to this like on bodyparts that have the capacity for high volume AND load (e.g. traps/legs/back). These respond well to higher volume (or as some would call it, pump work)…think “widow makers”.

Having said that, yes there are sports where more strength is needed relative to size, but the funny thing is that it takes forethought in their training style to do this (e.g. very low TUT). Growth is a side effect they consciously have to minimise lol.

I believe that bodybuilding is pretty straight forward. It’s not easy, and there’s far too much crap out there to confuse people, but once you learn the fundamentals it’s pretty clear cut.

9 times out of 10, when you’re at a strength sticking point (so muscle growth isn’t going to be happening), you push your bodyweight up and as if by magic you’re stronger/bigger :wink: It couldn’t be more simple, but so many miss the mark or over-complicate matters.

It’s good to have a “baseline”. A type of training that you do most of the time because it works most of the time. Then when really needed, alter things (e.g. exercises/volume/intensity) either permanently if it works long term, or temporarily if it helps further your baseline training.

So my form of periodization would not be having sets/reps schemes all over the place, I’d rather take a middle road approach, and tweak when needed. E.g. I wouldn’t do 3-5 reps for chest “strength” on Monday, then 12-15 reps for chest “growth” on Friday…I’d do somewhere in-between, consistently, like 5-8 reps. Then as fatigue builds up/progress slows over the weeks, that’s when I’d tweak it (e.g. higher volume and lower intensity for a while until “recharged”)

But that’s just my opinion/experience [1]

good.

  1. /quote ↩︎

34

Regarding goal orientated training.

Well IMO it would not be THAT different. The template would be quite similar but with different emphasizes:

Strength (What kind of? I take Powerlifting here)

-Focus on ME days (1-3 rep range perhaps) and DE/RE days (wise exercise choices on RE days to build the weak areas.
-Smart Variation of the competition lifts for strength transfer.

Mass:

-Also ME days to active the IIB fibers. but with a slightly higher rep range (4-6 reps) because 1RMs are not needed and the slightly more reps might contribute (a bit) more to myofibrill grwoth
-only RE days with a brighter rep range (8-15) no DE days.
-for “pure mass” as a goal , variation of the competition lifts is not needed-you don´t have to take care of a carry over effect. Feel free to choose the exercises you want. (of course conpund variations are always a wise choice.

Pick your side,
science

35

[quote]science wrote:
good.
[/quote]

Interesting article.

Not just saying that, because I am very familiar with that type of reasoning (e.g. Chad Waterbury is very keen on that style, so are the authors of Big Beyond Belief and many other authors).

Basically, you are stimulating different “pathways” multiple times a week because things recover at different rates (muscles/nervous system/connective tissues).

Firstly, I’d like to point out that this thinking is a bit backwards. Because of articles like that, people often seem to feel that fatiguing muscles and the nervous system are two completely different matters like you can separate the two lol. Granted, keeping a rep in the tank is a great way of minimising nervous system fatigue (thus allowing more frequent “hitting”), and lower load training (not very effective) is easier on the connective tissues etc. But these are things you need to do when called for IMO.

Where I’m coming from is real world experience/results (for bodybuilding, not strength sports where that sort of thing matters more). I really wanted to believe all that for bodybuilding ^. But when you look around, how many massive people are being built following those “rules” to the tee, as opposed to simply getting brutally strong on exercises? Pictures are welcome…

I know they say that this is a means to an end (better strength progression), but in my book there are fewer variables (e.g. food/over-load/rest) and not too many grey areas. This is bodybuilding.

The thing that I found most ineffective was the high rep training days (just to flush nutrients into the muscle and give the nervous system a break) - it really didn’t make a world of difference to me. In fact, those days were better spent simply…um…well, resting…(gasp). Thereby ensuring better recovery and being able to train the muscle part sooner with a rep scheme that actually stimulated growth. Adding a high rep training day simply gets in the way of growth inducing workouts IMO.

Like I said, the only time low intensity training days were good for me (and it didn’t include doing tons of reps; just reducing load, maybe increasing reps a little, not going failure etc) is as a break from HIT…which is to serve the purpose of complete refreshment for a better intensity phase (not something just thrown in the week without a good purpose).

People can argue that low intensity can induce growth…only if enough volume/effort is done - but where does that leave the poor nervous system that’s supposed to be having an “easier” day after your 2 hard days? Fatigue is fatigue, no matter which way you look at it (and enough needs to be done to grow). IMO, better to separate the two phases because volume needs reduced intensity (and fatigue builds up from previous sessions if they were intense), and intensity requires more recovery (so you can’t just throw in a high volume day in-between).

That just leaves the 2 rep/set schemes - medium and low days. This one I wasn’t so bothered about, in fact, I tried for some time and REALLY never noticed a significant difference in growth vs. a consistent rep/set scheme (so long as I switched after a certain amount of time to avoid stagnation). The main issue I had with it was tracking progress - more of a pain in the ass (and sometimes just confusing/deceptive…taking the focus away from diet).

As for alternating different exercise to lower the stress and increase growth…does your pecs magically grow bigger by hitting them 1-2 days later (except doing DB pressing vs BB pressing)? Are your pecs fully recovered after 1-2 days? If so, you didn’t train them very well did you? lol Or at least, you’re not training them for bodybuilding purposes.

Yes, advanced people alternate the different exercises as a means of joint health/targeting weak areas, but not so that they can train them really soon and somehow get more growth. An under recovered target muscle is…get this…under-recovered, it won’t suddenly go away by just by doing a different exercise if it’s sooner than it’s recovered lol

The author (Casey Butt) makes some really bad assumptions (that most of us train bodyparts once a week, and high volume like 15+ sets)…but it’s simply not true. I discovered very early on in my training that I responded to training upper body up to twice a week because I found out that it recovered quite quickly and responded well to low-medium stimulus.

Bottom line is this; am I going to develop lean 17" arms because my training called for a different rep/exercise scheme every single week (and one of those days was purely an “active rest day”) vs my “boring” training where they got just as strong and only change when results slow? IMO, I don’t think so…

36

Interesting thread.
Usually I like to change things up every 8-10 weeks. For example I might change my main lift on chest day from 5x5 barbell bench to 10x3 dB bench. Prevents me from getting bored. Also I find its good for goal setting. For example; “at the end of this 10 week cycle I aim for my 5 rep squat to improve from 265 lbs to 310 lbs”.

tweet tweet

37

Eh, I have to say I don’t quite agree with your last post its_just_me.

I don’t agree that high-rep training days are “low intensity”, provided you choose your weights wisely. They ARE lower intensity on the CNS IME but fatigue the muscle all the same. In fact oftentimes the soreness lasts longer than the high volume lower-rep standard training day (possibly because the muscle is fatigued in a different way).

From my experience, dropping say, 20-30% of my heaviest set but upping the reps to 30-40 per set can be very beneficial, depending on caloric intake. In particular, I find although muscles are just as sore the overall fatigue however is somewhat lower - which is why many BBers swap to high-rep lower volume training once they start to cut. Less carbs = worse recovery = choosing a program less taxing on your CNS.

One thing however, IMHO the high-rep low volume to tone, low-rep high volume to build mass thinking is outdated. BBers look more “toned” doing the high-rep programme simply because by then they are usually cutting (shedding BF) so the muscles look more defined anyway.

38

[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:
I don’t agree that high-rep training days are “low intensity”, provided you choose your weights wisely. They ARE lower intensity on the CNS IME but fatigue the muscle all the same. In fact oftentimes the soreness lasts longer than the high volume lower-rep standard training day (possibly because the muscle is fatigued in a different way).
[/quote]

Sorry, I often use the word intensity to mean two things (often interchangeable), but in that case I meant low intensity as in lower % of your 1RM

Examples:

High intensity = 80-90% of 1RM
Low intensity = 60-70% of 1RM

It still takes a lot of effort, but intensity in this meaning is low.

Personally I find it torture going far above 12 reps (my endurance is low probably from spending too much time on lower rep schemes). So it’s not like I’m associating that kind of training with being a wimp.

Just saying that I don’t get any (none?) noticeable growth stimulus from “low” intensity training. Not even speeded up recovery from the heavy days (which can be done via cardio/being active anyway).

39

@ its_just_me interesting stuff. I’m liking what you have to say and am finding myself considering a lot of good points that I never really thought of. This is a good conversation, lets keep it going. Tomorrow’s the weekend, so I’ll have time to sift through it. In the mean time if you have any other posts going talk about this one and try and get some more people to jump in. I talked about it in my log “Chemo, Radiation and a Stem Cell Transplant” and want a couple more views and opinions to stir things up. Post back tmr, cheers!

40

[quote]EF5127 wrote:
@ its_just_me interesting stuff. I’m liking what you have to say and am finding myself considering a lot of good points that I never really thought of. This is a good conversation, lets keep it going. Tomorrow’s the weekend, so I’ll have time to sift through it. In the mean time if you have any other posts going talk about this one and try and get some more people to jump in. I talked about it in my log “Chemo, Radiation and a Stem Cell Transplant” and want a couple more views and opinions to stir things up. Post back tmr, cheers![/quote]

Your dedication despite setbacks is very inspiring. I can’t imagine trying to push myself after what you’ve been through, well done.

Obviously, in your circumstance I’d say build up the intensity very slowly (but only when diet is solid). High intensity training (e.g. pushing weights to near failure with your 80-85% 1RM load) is tough on the healthiest individuals, let alone someone who’s body’s bouncing back to “normality”.

To re-iterate what I said earlier, I do think that low intensity training works to some degree, just not the best of styles to be on long term.

PS - I like to discuss these things, sorry for taking over this whole thread (I’m sure I tend to bore people to death with my walls of text and kill threads lol)