T Nation

This Answers Everything

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
I squat everyday. Every single day. But not everyday is it with a barbell. Majority of the squats I do are BW, which probably bubbles everyones blood even more.
[/quote]

I do random sets of 10 body squats on everyday that I don’t do a barbell squat. My body starts to stiff up and the barbell squats get worse otherwise.[/quote]

Same here. I believe the majority is very much attached to just brutally abusing a body part once or twice a week. And of course attached to that is the notion, or demand for more weight, more reps, more pain. I compare it to a stressed college kid having only two nights to CRAM down as much information as possible… When in fact, studying an hour here and there everyday would be of exponentially more beneficial.
Then of course the brain, just like the muscle, just as quickly forgets the stimulation brought upon it…

[/quote]

I disagree fully and then some. I tried the squatting varying intensities from bar with 50-100% to goblet squats and all thats shit programmed out at various intensities and didn’t see half the progress I have with hammering my squats once maybe twice a week. Im not trying to be a dick but, come on.

There is a reason most all of the world record holders on the PLing scene right now are only training each move once maybe twice a week. Adding weight and reps leads to over load, over load leads to progression and progression leads to much more than 315 squat in how ever long you have been training.

My 130 pound Girl Friend has been training for barely 3 months and has squat 185 in 3 months squatting and pulling on Saturdays, Benching on Tuesday, and doing upper back on Wednesdays if she can. If you know how to program training a muscle and movement once a week can easily produce extremely good gains. You may not have the pain tolerance for it but hey thats between you and you.

“During the time I recommended 95lbs on your GVT, you were experiencing constant lower back issues and even foot pain. I don’t remember exactly, but I think your knees were iffy as well. It’s classic symptoms of hip lumbo complex issues when you have a chain of imbalances like that. Not to mention you have countless threads about how you’re always tired and feel weak.

No, what happened was that you didn’t know what you were talking about. The reason why I rarely post around here any more is because people like you who act like they know a thing or two but are clueless. Stop giving people advice.

Topic A:
I do agree that it was a solid article from Boyce and did discuss, as the title said, an overlooked aspect of training for most lifters. A strength base is crucial for everyone in the gym almost regardless of their goal, I think everyone agreed on that, but once it’s in place and muscle size is the priority, “more weight each session” is not the be all-end all path to gains.

It really is about using the right tool for the job. And when the job/goal is size, the right tool isn’t always bringing your bench from 225x4 to 315x3. Good ol’ time under tension seems to have been pushed to the back burner lately, but it’s always synonymous with bodybuilding/muscle-building for a reason.

Topic B:
Jarvan laid out his training plan and stats here a few months ago:


And has said in another thread that he often eats just once a day. His diet and training shouldn’t be interpreted as the ideal way for anyone other than Jarvan. Seems to be working for him since he’s happy with his results, and that counts for a lot, but it goes very much against “the rules” of training fundamentals. Lifting 30% 1RM for 1-8 “slow perfect reps” is not how the overwhelming-majority of coaches would want an athlete or recreational lifter to train.

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
“During the time I recommended 95lbs on your GVT, you were experiencing constant lower back issues and even foot pain. I don’t remember exactly, but I think your knees were iffy as well. It’s classic symptoms of hip lumbo complex issues when you have a chain of imbalances like that. Not to mention you have countless threads about how you’re always tired and feel weak.

No, what happened was that you didn’t know what you were talking about. The reason why I rarely post around here any more is because people like you who act like they know a thing or two but are clueless. Stop giving people advice.[/quote]

Bro, you have written some stupid shit in the past as well. If the other posters and Jarvan would like to continue their debate you either engage or shut up. Don’t be the one standing at the sidelines taking the opportunity to throw cheap shots at him.

[quote]Reed wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
I squat everyday. Every single day. But not everyday is it with a barbell. Majority of the squats I do are BW, which probably bubbles everyones blood even more.
[/quote]

I do random sets of 10 body squats on everyday that I don’t do a barbell squat. My body starts to stiff up and the barbell squats get worse otherwise.[/quote]

Same here. I believe the majority is very much attached to just brutally abusing a body part once or twice a week. And of course attached to that is the notion, or demand for more weight, more reps, more pain. I compare it to a stressed college kid having only two nights to CRAM down as much information as possible… When in fact, studying an hour here and there everyday would be of exponentially more beneficial.
Then of course the brain, just like the muscle, just as quickly forgets the stimulation brought upon it…

[/quote]

I disagree fully and then some. I tried the squatting varying intensities from bar with 50-100% to goblet squats and all thats shit programmed out at various intensities and didn’t see half the progress I have with hammering my squats once maybe twice a week. Im not trying to be a dick but, come on.

There is a reason most all of the world record holders on the PLing scene right now are only training each move once maybe twice a week. Adding weight and reps leads to over load, over load leads to progression and progression leads to much more than 315 squat in how ever long you have been training.

My 130 pound Girl Friend has been training for barely 3 months and has squat 185 in 3 months squatting and pulling on Saturdays, Benching on Tuesday, and doing upper back on Wednesdays if she can. If you know how to program training a muscle and movement once a week can easily produce extremely good gains. You may not have the pain tolerance for it but hey thats between you and you.
[/quote]

Congrats to your girlfriend on her achievement. It seems that she somehow accomplished a nearly 1.4x bodyweight squat squat with only 12 workouts. And I’m guessing you trained her? I hope you’re coaching others because I have never ever come across an untrained woman accomplishing that in such a small time frame.

And what exactly are you disagreeing with in the quoted statement?

And I’m sorry man, I believe you are mistaken. PLer don’t always train once a week. Andy Bolton was a huge influence to my training philosophy and how I train now. He explains in his documentary how he purposely uses sub maximal loads so that he can add volume and frequency during the week to his deadlift. Listen though, stop yourself from getting upset. Actually read this so you can fully understand before ignorantly typing away again. Then there’s Dan Green. Enough said. And then there’s Tom Platz, although he wasn’t a powerlifter. Not to mention the oly lifters and gymnasts in the world. With that said, THIS is important Reed, there are also amazing bodybuilders, strongman and powerlifters that train once a week. There will always be poles. But let’s not forget, not everyone in the world wants to be a PLer like you buddy.

You are blurring the lines of your personal agenda with what the words actually say. You somehow compared your goblet squats to how i train and surmised it as hogwash simply because it didn’t work for you.

First, how do you know what my training entails? Did you simply look at the “1-6 reps” decided that you figured it out?
And your “overloading” quote is a perfect example of not only you pushing your personal dogma, but pretty much the global obsession with more more and more.

And i dont really like pain, which is why I lift the way I do… to avoid it. Not in terms of muscle soreness, I mean in terms of common lifting pains. I gotta save my knees and elbows for when I swing at peoples head, torso, and limbs.

And yea, not to be a dick but its easier to have a discussion if you stick to the topic.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Topic A:
I do agree that it was a solid article from Boyce and did discuss, as the title said, an overlooked aspect of training for most lifters. A strength base is crucial for everyone in the gym almost regardless of their goal, I think everyone agreed on that, but once it’s in place and muscle size is the priority, “more weight each session” is not the be all-end all path to gains.

It really is about using the right tool for the job. And when the job/goal is size, the right tool isn’t always bringing your bench from 225x4 to 315x3. Good ol’ time under tension seems to have been pushed to the back burner lately, but it’s always synonymous with bodybuilding/muscle-building for a reason.

Topic B:
Jarvan laid out his training plan and stats here a few months ago:


And has said in another thread that he often eats just once a day. His diet and training shouldn’t be interpreted as the ideal way for anyone other than Jarvan. Seems to be working for him since he’s happy with his results, and that counts for a lot, but it goes very much against “the rules” of training fundamentals. Lifting 30% 1RM for 1-8 “slow perfect reps” is not how the overwhelming-majority of coaches would want an athlete or recreational lifter to train.[/quote]

Need to learn how to be succint like this.

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
Gaining more muscle is a good idea, but it can be bad too.
Too much muscle puts on too much weight. And too much weight makes it harder for me to make weight (on the scale). Muscle also requires a lot of fuel. Which means that it will hinder my stamina in a grueling fight. And extraneous muscle requires more maintenance. A hassle for someone like myself who isn’t planning on stepping on stage for my aesthetics. The muscle I have on my body now stays with me, even with simple calisthenics… Hence, the upkeep is minimal giving me ample time to focus on other skills.
[/quote]

Fair enough, obviously if you have to stay in a weight class you can’t gain weight, but I didn’t refer to gaining muscle, I referred to gaining strength. Which we both seem to agree is important, for most sports. Without caloric excess, no muscle gain. You can still get stronger. Probably not with 95lb squats, though.

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
And it is your personal opinion that squatting heavy would have given you an edge in wrestling. Dan Gable didn’t barbell squat, although he did use resistance training. If you read about his resistance training, it would be very hard to agree that it would hold any bearing on his wrestling success. But would you disagree with Dan Gable? It’s also important to note that the Russian wrestlers he absolutely decimated in the Olympics used kettlebell training.
[/quote]

I never said you have to barbell squat to be a successful athlete. My point is that strength is an important factor for athletic performance, especially in a sport like wrestling, and many more expert people than me agree that the barbell squat is a superior way of developing (and measuring) strength. Dan Gable, I have to assume, was still relatively strong for his bodyweight, regardless of whatever methods he used (and you say he did use resistance training of some kind). If he wasn’t strong, he would have been at a disadvantage against other competitors of a similar skill level, other factors being equal.

Secondly, you’re talking about Olympic-level competitors. Skill in a specific sport is obviously the most important factor in determining success at that sport. And with elite competitors, the skill level is very high and the margins of victory usually slim. Entirely different arena than high school wrestling. The skill level is low. Strength, and other metrics of general athleticism, are therefore more important.

In my case, I didn’t do any resistance training beyond basic bodyweight stuff until after high school. As a wrestler, I was on the low-end of the strength spectrum. This was a disadvantage. My point was that if I had started an intelligent weight-training program earlier, I could have turned my disadvantage into an advantage, by being stronger than most competitors.

I think if I had started a good basic barbell program like Starting Strength at 13 or 14 and progressed intelligently (a big hypothetical, as there wasn’t really anyone around to coach me) I could have had a 400 lb squat by the time I was a senior. And I think that one difference (being much stronger) would have made me a much more competitive wrestler, at the same skill level.

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
As an athlete strength plays an integral role. But strength is but one attribute in a sport where overall balance is of utmost importance. The ability to finish a takedown is not at all conducive to my squat number. If it was, I would definitely seek a 400lbs squat, rather than drilling takedowns. But the truth is, a big squat number doesn’t translate into quickness or finishing a takedown. No man will properly sit on your back so that you hoist him up, or drive through his legs. He’s going to sprawl, he’s going to drive your head and neck to the ground, and he’s gonna try to control you with his whizzer. What you’ll end up in is a dog fight in all sorts of positions. A super high squat number holds no bearing at this point.

With that said, of course strength is important, especially in the squat. But the there comes a point where the sacrifices outweigh the benefits.
[/quote]

I mean, I agree that there are multiple elements that go into athletic performance and that skill in the sport itself is ultimately the most important factor, but when you say things like “No man will properly sit on your back so that you hoist him up, or drive through his legs” it makes me feel like you’re missing the point, even contradicting yourself (your last line about how the squat is important).

The actual movement of the barbell squat isn’t analogous to every position or movement in any sport, obviously, but that really isn’t the point. The squat develops general lower body strength. General strength carries over to performance of many athletic movements, including (of course) a takedown, or grappling on the floor.

Are you suggesting that you’re functionally just as strong now, squatting 300, as you were when you squatted 365? In other words, that your practice of the movement has changed (you don’t squat very heavy), but you haven’t lost any benefit to athletic performance derived from that movement? That’s an argument that might have merit. I don’t know. I’m skeptical, but it could be true I suppose. At a certain point, the carryover from increasing poundages on the big lifts to athletic performance may not be worth the time/energy increasing the lifts would require, in terms of training. Diminishing returns, and all that. The numbers usually thrown out for that benchmark are around 300/400/500, though.

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
And about kicking harder…
I understand not everyone trains MMA or Muay Thai, so I’ll tell you. You don’t learn to kick harder by squatting more. You learn to kick harder by being more flexible, whipping, refining technique, and thousands of reps. Please remember, I am not saying to stop getting stronger. I am saying that while squatting is important, it is more important to squat to attain the results you want. In my case, getting back up to 365lbs wouldn’t help, but hurt me. [/quote]

I’ve been doing martial arts since I was 6 years old. If you had asked me at 19 if I could kick hard, I would have of course said yes. At 20 I started lifting weights. I went from only occasionally doing BW squats as part of general conditioning to 400x5 w/ a barbell. I have no proof, I haven’t measured the strength of my kick in any quantifiable way, but it seems obvious to me that I have a much more powerful kick now than I did at 19.

I wouldn’t presume to tell you, as a competitive athlete, how to train. But it still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to load up volume on 95 lb squats. If not hypertrophy, what effect does this have?

Personally, if I were training competitively in MMA, I would lift heavy twice a week on the big lifts, focusing on strength – singles, doubles, triples, fives – and spend the rest of the time (every day) training specifically for MMA, with intense sparring a max of 2-3 times / week.

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]Reed wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
I squat everyday. Every single day. But not everyday is it with a barbell. Majority of the squats I do are BW, which probably bubbles everyones blood even more.
[/quote]

I do random sets of 10 body squats on everyday that I don’t do a barbell squat. My body starts to stiff up and the barbell squats get worse otherwise.[/quote]

Same here. I believe the majority is very much attached to just brutally abusing a body part once or twice a week. And of course attached to that is the notion, or demand for more weight, more reps, more pain. I compare it to a stressed college kid having only two nights to CRAM down as much information as possible… When in fact, studying an hour here and there everyday would be of exponentially more beneficial.
Then of course the brain, just like the muscle, just as quickly forgets the stimulation brought upon it…

[/quote]

I disagree fully and then some. I tried the squatting varying intensities from bar with 50-100% to goblet squats and all thats shit programmed out at various intensities and didn’t see half the progress I have with hammering my squats once maybe twice a week. Im not trying to be a dick but, come on.

There is a reason most all of the world record holders on the PLing scene right now are only training each move once maybe twice a week. Adding weight and reps leads to over load, over load leads to progression and progression leads to much more than 315 squat in how ever long you have been training.

My 130 pound Girl Friend has been training for barely 3 months and has squat 185 in 3 months squatting and pulling on Saturdays, Benching on Tuesday, and doing upper back on Wednesdays if she can. If you know how to program training a muscle and movement once a week can easily produce extremely good gains. You may not have the pain tolerance for it but hey thats between you and you.
[/quote]

Congrats to your girlfriend on her achievement. It seems that she somehow accomplished a nearly 1.4x bodyweight squat squat with only 12 workouts. And I’m guessing you trained her? I hope you’re coaching others because I have never ever come across an untrained woman accomplishing that in such a small time frame.

And what exactly are you disagreeing with in the quoted statement?

And I’m sorry man, I believe you are mistaken. PLer don’t always train once a week. Andy Bolton was a huge influence to my training philosophy and how I train now. He explains in his documentary how he purposely uses sub maximal loads so that he can add volume and frequency during the week to his deadlift. Listen though, stop yourself from getting upset. Actually read this so you can fully understand before ignorantly typing away again. Then there’s Dan Green. Enough said. And then there’s Tom Platz, although he wasn’t a powerlifter. Not to mention the oly lifters and gymnasts in the world. With that said, THIS is important Reed, there are also amazing bodybuilders, strongman and powerlifters that train once a week. There will always be poles. But let’s not forget, not everyone in the world wants to be a PLer like you buddy.

You are blurring the lines of your personal agenda with what the words actually say. You somehow compared your goblet squats to how i train and surmised it as hogwash simply because it didn’t work for you.

First, how do you know what my training entails? Did you simply look at the “1-6 reps” decided that you figured it out?
And your “overloading” quote is a perfect example of not only you pushing your personal dogma, but pretty much the global obsession with more more and more.

And i dont really like pain, which is why I lift the way I do… to avoid it. Not in terms of muscle soreness, I mean in terms of common lifting pains. I gotta save my knees and elbows for when I swing at peoples head, torso, and limbs.

And yea, not to be a dick but its easier to have a discussion if you stick to the topic.
[/quote]

Well thank you on that and I agree her progression has been absolutely insane but she lifts extremely hard and pours more aggression into her training than most men I have trained with. If intensity is there then such a high frequency for one is not needed and is damn near impossible to keep up atleast drug free.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iWyriyl4j4 - 185 in a light wrap. I dont like her being in wraps this soon but she wanted to try them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUnQwoHg1Vk - Saturdays session about 3 weeks later 110lbs as raw as it gets for 2x5 and 1x10 those are only cheap mcdavid knee sleeves ( well actually they are my elbow sleeves ) on her knees so she is getting nothing from them. This week is about her 14th training week with me. if that.

No I am not mistaken at all. I did not say ALL powerlifters train once a week I said many of the top guys such as Chris Duffin,Sam Byrd, Lillibridges, Andry Melanchev, Derek Kendell, and many many others train the the movements once a week maybe twice. Hell a few listed only train the movement heavy every other week. I have no personal agenda I am trying to push. I could careless if you want to continue to make what ever gains you believe are good gains. But, to try and push it on others is not right. Your way is obviously no more effective than mine and theirs. I am not saying training with a high frequency cant work but it is not for everyone as it did not work for me. You also took what I said out of context on the goblet squats I said I tried squatting daily whether it be with a bar, a bw or goblet squat I was simply only listing that I tried different movements of squats once a day and I didn’t see near the results.

Next I knew how you train because I have seen the link that chris posted before. Next the I am a competitive powerlifter… That means my success in my sport literally relies on me coming back stronger and having more and more weight on the bar. Overloading as I put it allows this and does it effectively. Maybe if you are a normal person and not a competitive athlete or trying to push your self as far as you can sure then don’t over load just continue to do what you do. I confused you with someone who wanted to push the limits and be the best you could. I wont make the mistake again.

[quote]dt79 wrote:
I’m not the one seperating training methodologies. I wrote that any form of weight progression that challenges and forces the body to adapt and get stronger will induce hypertrophy, regardless of the load used.
[/quote]

If that’s what you wrote, then we have no disagreement. I thought you said that hypertrophy will occur first and lead to / allow for strength gains. Which I took issue with because of neural adaptation being such a significant factor for beginners.

[quote]dt79 wrote:
You seem to think that he must get to a certain strength level before hypertrophy can happen. If so, why are you telling him to eat more if all that is happening is him becoming more neurally efficient? Won’t he just be gaining fat?[/quote]

What I’m saying is that he (and beginners in general) should focus on strength development, rather than hypertrophy-inducing techniques (that advanced lifters might use) because progress is clear and measurable and will lead to both neural and muscular gains.

You can’t necessarily divide these two or know when one starts occurring more than the other. I.e., “don’t eat this week because it’s all neural adaptation, but next week up the calories because hypertrophy is going to start.” It doesn’t work like that, and in any case you need increased calories to recover and lift a heavier weight, even if most of the adaptation is neural. But it would make sense to me that he starts adding muscle to his legs before his arms because his squat keeps going up steadily and is relatively strong while his upper body lifts are weak.

In other words: I don’t think benching 100x3x5 is necessarily enough stimulus to immediately build his chest or triceps, but I also don’t think increasing volume and pushing to failure is the answer. Better to maintain a high frequency and progressively load weight onto the bar.

It is exactly what I wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
For the sake of discussion, IMO the part about needing a “strength base” is false. What is really needed is progression , and in the case of a beginner, quantifiable progression while he gains experience, hence the focus on numbers. Strength will come with muscle growth.[/quote]

It is pretty obvious that neural adaption will take place. I thought it didn’t need to be said. That does not mean hypertrophy is not occuring and not a contributing factor to gains in strength.

This is also exactly what I wrote.

But you wrote this:

Then he would be gaining mainly fat if he gains weight without gaining muscle. Do you still not see the flaw in logic? If that were the case we would see most beginners becoming fat asses in their first few months of training until they reach some arbitary level of strength.

What would also make sense is that he is gaining muscle in his legs WHILE poundages are increasing. Again, yes, neural adaption is also taking place.

It is not enough stimulus to make him big but it is enough to make him bigger than when he was benching 50x3x5 and several pounds lighter.

My agreement with this depends on the objective. If it’s solely to create a “base of strength” I would disagree. If it’s to maximise neural gains AND giving the muscle more frequent stimulation by taking advantage of a beginner’s tolerance to volume, I’d agree partially.

[quote]Reed wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]Reed wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Jarvan wrote:
I squat everyday. Every single day. But not everyday is it with a barbell. Majority of the squats I do are BW, which probably bubbles everyones blood even more.
[/quote]

I do random sets of 10 body squats on everyday that I don’t do a barbell squat. My body starts to stiff up and the barbell squats get worse otherwise.[/quote]

Same here. I believe the majority is very much attached to just brutally abusing a body part once or twice a week. And of course attached to that is the notion, or demand for more weight, more reps, more pain. I compare it to a stressed college kid having only two nights to CRAM down as much information as possible… When in fact, studying an hour here and there everyday would be of exponentially more beneficial.
Then of course the brain, just like the muscle, just as quickly forgets the stimulation brought upon it…

[/quote]

I disagree fully and then some. I tried the squatting varying intensities from bar with 50-100% to goblet squats and all thats shit programmed out at various intensities and didn’t see half the progress I have with hammering my squats once maybe twice a week. Im not trying to be a dick but, come on.

There is a reason most all of the world record holders on the PLing scene right now are only training each move once maybe twice a week. Adding weight and reps leads to over load, over load leads to progression and progression leads to much more than 315 squat in how ever long you have been training.

My 130 pound Girl Friend has been training for barely 3 months and has squat 185 in 3 months squatting and pulling on Saturdays, Benching on Tuesday, and doing upper back on Wednesdays if she can. If you know how to program training a muscle and movement once a week can easily produce extremely good gains. You may not have the pain tolerance for it but hey thats between you and you.
[/quote]

Congrats to your girlfriend on her achievement. It seems that she somehow accomplished a nearly 1.4x bodyweight squat squat with only 12 workouts. And I’m guessing you trained her? I hope you’re coaching others because I have never ever come across an untrained woman accomplishing that in such a small time frame.

And what exactly are you disagreeing with in the quoted statement?

And I’m sorry man, I believe you are mistaken. PLer don’t always train once a week. Andy Bolton was a huge influence to my training philosophy and how I train now. He explains in his documentary how he purposely uses sub maximal loads so that he can add volume and frequency during the week to his deadlift. Listen though, stop yourself from getting upset. Actually read this so you can fully understand before ignorantly typing away again. Then there’s Dan Green. Enough said. And then there’s Tom Platz, although he wasn’t a powerlifter. Not to mention the oly lifters and gymnasts in the world. With that said, THIS is important Reed, there are also amazing bodybuilders, strongman and powerlifters that train once a week. There will always be poles. But let’s not forget, not everyone in the world wants to be a PLer like you buddy.

You are blurring the lines of your personal agenda with what the words actually say. You somehow compared your goblet squats to how i train and surmised it as hogwash simply because it didn’t work for you.

First, how do you know what my training entails? Did you simply look at the “1-6 reps” decided that you figured it out?
And your “overloading” quote is a perfect example of not only you pushing your personal dogma, but pretty much the global obsession with more more and more.

And i dont really like pain, which is why I lift the way I do… to avoid it. Not in terms of muscle soreness, I mean in terms of common lifting pains. I gotta save my knees and elbows for when I swing at peoples head, torso, and limbs.

And yea, not to be a dick but its easier to have a discussion if you stick to the topic.
[/quote]

Well thank you on that and I agree her progression has been absolutely insane but she lifts extremely hard and pours more aggression into her training than most men I have trained with. If intensity is there then such a high frequency for one is not needed and is damn near impossible to keep up atleast drug free.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iWyriyl4j4 - 185 in a light wrap. I dont like her being in wraps this soon but she wanted to try them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUnQwoHg1Vk - Saturdays session about 3 weeks later 110lbs as raw as it gets for 2x5 and 1x10 those are only cheap mcdavid knee sleeves ( well actually they are my elbow sleeves ) on her knees so she is getting nothing from them. This week is about her 14th training week with me. if that.

No I am not mistaken at all. I did not say ALL powerlifters train once a week I said many of the top guys such as Chris Duffin,Sam Byrd, Lillibridges, Andry Melanchev, Derek Kendell, and many many others train the the movements once a week maybe twice. Hell a few listed only train the movement heavy every other week. I have no personal agenda I am trying to push. I could careless if you want to continue to make what ever gains you believe are good gains. But, to try and push it on others is not right. Your way is obviously no more effective than mine and theirs. I am not saying training with a high frequency cant work but it is not for everyone as it did not work for me. You also took what I said out of context on the goblet squats I said I tried squatting daily whether it be with a bar, a bw or goblet squat I was simply only listing that I tried different movements of squats once a day and I didn’t see near the results.

Next I knew how you train because I have seen the link that chris posted before. Next the I am a competitive powerlifter… That means my success in my sport literally relies on me coming back stronger and having more and more weight on the bar. Overloading as I put it allows this and does it effectively. Maybe if you are a normal person and not a competitive athlete or trying to push your self as far as you can sure then don’t over load just continue to do what you do. I confused you with someone who wanted to push the limits and be the best you could. I wont make the mistake again.

[/quote]

Wraps or not, belt or not, her squat is impressive. Depth is there and it’s obvious she had good coaching throughout.

Just want to reiterate again, I am not advising everyone stick to 95lbs squats. It is what I personally do. The main reason I posted this thread was to make aware the importance of other factors when it comes to lifting. Rather than simply adding more weight to the bar.

Somewhere along the thread, we’ve deviated from the article and focused the attention on my personal workout routine.

And let us be clear. You and I have completely different goals in mind. Your objective is to hit high numbers on the squat. For myself, it doesn’t necessarily matter how much I squat. It just matters that I can translate strength of any kind into what I do. Questioning my attitude towards ‘being the best that I can’ is kind of ignorant no? Considering again that I am not a competitive lifter. With that said, I am satisfied with my current max as I feel superior in my strength against others in my sport… of those being same size, and bigger than I am.

[quote]craze9 wrote:
Fair enough, obviously if you have to stay in a weight class you can’t gain weight, but I didn’t refer to gaining muscle, I referred to gaining strength. Which we both seem to agree is important, for most sports. Without caloric excess, no muscle gain. You can still get stronger. Probably not with 95lb squats, though. [/quote]

Probably not theoretically/presumably, but I have achieved what I have using my personal method. Not quite what Lee Boyce has written, but through my own interpretation of some of the methods he listed. And if you refer back to Colucci’s post of my routine, you’d see I am nearly always at a caloric deficit according to protocol. One, maybe two meals a day, less than bodyweight protein, and my weight has no budged. No lethargy, poor sleep, or any other signs of overtraning.

*I do sometimes have up to 4 meals a day. Depending on my day to day hunger level, holidays, intensity of workout the day prior, etc.

[quote]
I never said you have to barbell squat to be a successful athlete. My point is that strength is an important factor for athletic performance, especially in a sport like wrestling, and many more expert people than me agree that the barbell squat is a superior way of developing (and measuring) strength. Dan Gable, I have to assume, was still relatively strong for his bodyweight, regardless of whatever methods he used (and you say he did use resistance training of some kind). If he wasn’t strong, he would have been at a disadvantage against other competitors of a similar skill level, other factors being equal.

Secondly, you’re talking about Olympic-level competitors. Skill in a specific sport is obviously the most important factor in determining success at that sport. And with elite competitors, the skill level is very high and the margins of victory usually slim. Entirely different arena than high school wrestling. The skill level is low. Strength, and other metrics of general athleticism, are therefore more important.

In my case, I didn’t do any resistance training beyond basic bodyweight stuff until after high school. As a wrestler, I was on the low-end of the strength spectrum. This was a disadvantage. My point was that if I had started an intelligent weight-training program earlier, I could have turned my disadvantage into an advantage, by being stronger than most competitors.

I think if I had started a good basic barbell program like Starting Strength at 13 or 14 and progressed intelligently (a big hypothetical, as there wasn’t really anyone around to coach me) I could have had a 400 lb squat by the time I was a senior. And I think that one difference (being much stronger) would have made me a much more competitive wrestler, at the same skill level.[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly. Strength is very much important, but let me point out some anecdotal evidence. Beyond high school wrestling practice, I also worked out with various clubs… ALL of which had prior state champs, and wrestlers that would go on to place in states. Throughout the 5 or so years that I was involved with these clubs, we were never asked or pushed to hit certain squat numbers.

Does that mean squats aren’t important. Absolutely not, which is why I agree with you that strong lifts could have given us an edge. However, with the recent exploding advent of “strength and conditioning” programs geared towards sports, we tend to put overtly too much emphasis on numbers in the weight room.

Again, strength is important, but I don’t feel I personally need a squat higher than twice my bodyweight to excel in what I do.

[quote]
I mean, I agree that there are multiple elements that go into athletic performance and that skill in the sport itself is ultimately the most important factor, but when you say things like “No man will properly sit on your back so that you hoist him up, or drive through his legs” it makes me feel like you’re missing the point, even contradicting yourself (your last line about how the squat is important).

The actual movement of the barbell squat isn’t analogous to every position or movement in any sport, obviously, but that really isn’t the point. The squat develops general lower body strength. General strength carries over to performance of many athletic movements, including (of course) a takedown, or grappling on the floor.

Are you suggesting that you’re functionally just as strong now, squatting 300, as you were when you squatted 365? In other words, that your practice of the movement has changed (you don’t squat very heavy), but you haven’t lost any benefit to athletic performance derived from that movement? That’s an argument that might have merit. I don’t know. I’m skeptical, but it could be true I suppose. At a certain point, the carryover from increasing poundages on the big lifts to athletic performance may not be worth the time/energy increasing the lifts would require, in terms of training. Diminishing returns, and all that. The numbers usually thrown out for that benchmark are around 300/400/500, though.[/quote]

I am exponentially stronger in grappling since I have dropped regular heavy squatting.
I began devoting more time to flexibility, timing and speed on the mats and it has been night and day. With that said, I am not a beginner. I have been grappling since 97’. If a beginning grappler with a poor squat wanted to improve their explosion on takedowns… OF COURSE it would be an intelligent decision to increase the load on his squats during his strength training. But I on the other hand already have addressed that a long time ago. I hope you understand what I am pointing out.

[quote]
I’ve been doing martial arts since I was 6 years old. If you had asked me at 19 if I could kick hard, I would have of course said yes. At 20 I started lifting weights. I went from only occasionally doing BW squats as part of general conditioning to 400x5 w/ a barbell. I have no proof, I haven’t measured the strength of my kick in any quantifiable way, but it seems obvious to me that I have a much more powerful kick now than I did at 19.

I wouldn’t presume to tell you, as a competitive athlete, how to train. But it still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to load up volume on 95 lb squats. If not hypertrophy, what effect does this have?

Personally, if I were training competitively in MMA, I would lift heavy twice a week on the big lifts, focusing on strength – singles, doubles, triples, fives – and spend the rest of the time (every day) training specifically for MMA, with intense sparring a max of 2-3 times / week.[/quote]

Rather than solely hypertrophy, I am focusing on strength in the full ROM.
Take for example, if you were stuck in a near side cradle… what do you do? You hold your base, wrist/hand control and donkey kick out of it. Similar situation in the far side cradle. But the position you’re in when stuck in a cradle is not a position you often focus on in the squat. It’s likely your spine is laterally flexed and the hip isn’t aligned with the knee. It is a precarious situation in weight lifting terms, but in grappling you flex, extend and hinge starting from all sorts of positions.

What I am doing during sets (on any movement) focused on TUT is working out the the weak aspects in the entire spectrum of the ROM. If you refer back to my old thread on calisthenics, I mention a yoga term called chaturanga. You can read about it there.

Bringing back the beginner/experienced aspect once more, I would definitely suggest someone with a poor squat to start loading the bar to help build his quads and hips for a stronger kick. However, I will point out some more interesting anecdotal evidence.

I have spent several months training alongside journeymen and pro/champion MMA/Muay Thai fighters in Thailand (will be back there in March for another training camp). Let me tell you something. Nobody kicks harder than the Thai fighters. And of course you can say that they start kicking when they are 5 years old. And I would agree that it does hold weight. Which is why the emphasis on practicing your sport, most of the times, outweigh time spent in the weightroom.

Here’s a link to one of my coaches/training partners from Thailand.

http://www.nonsai-eb.com/

Nice guy, doesn’t squat, at all. He does awkward overhead presses and curls with rusty 25lbs kettlebells… ‘shitty’ pull ups here and there. But believe me when I say that his kicks and knees are not to be fucked with.

And speaking of Thai fighters, most of them look frail and scrawny… But then you see them clinch the bigger ‘expats/farangs’ (jacked dudes from the states, europe, austrailia, NZ), the Thai coaches wipe the floor with them. It is a sight to behold. Not the mention the Thai trainers will be found every night in their bungalows chasing their beer with Sangsom. Some even chain smoking.

But look, obviously you don’t tell people to not lift, drink every night, smoke, or yell OYYEEE every time they kick you… But the emphasis on sport specific skill is surely pronounced when you see what they can do.

And if you’re interested in actually training in a combat sport, start doing it. It’s easy to say you will, but it’s different when you step in the ring.

Perfecting a sport technique (thai kicks in this case) and gaining strength are not the same thing.

This is one odd thread.

So, to summarise:

People train in different ways for different goals.

I think that might be the end of this thread.

[quote]dagill2 wrote:
So, to summarise:

People train in different ways for different goals.

I think that might be the end of this thread.[/quote]
It was also literally the first sentence of the article posted.

“Training for a sport and performance is a different beast compared to training for size.”

So, I think you might be right. :wink:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

It is exactly what I wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
For the sake of discussion, IMO the part about needing a “strength base” is false. What is really needed is progression , and in the case of a beginner, quantifiable progression while he gains experience, hence the focus on numbers. Strength will come with muscle growth.[/quote]
[/quote]

If you’re going to get semantic, I’ll respond in kind.

[quote]dt79 wrote:
any form of weight progression that challenges and forces the body to adapt and get stronger will induce hypertrophy, regardless of the load used.
[/quote]

You say this is EXACTLY the same as:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
the part about needing a “strength base” is false. What is really needed is progression , and in the case of a beginner, quantifiable progression while he gains experience, hence the focus on numbers. Strength will come with muscle growth.
[/quote]

Maybe I’m going crazy, but they don’t look exactly the same to me at all.

In the latter statement, you take issue with the idea of a strength base, and state that “strength will come with muscle growth.”

I don’t think this is true. I know it’s possible to get stronger without muscle growth, so muscle growth is not necessary for strength increasing. That muscle growth alone is sufficient for strength increasing, or that it occurs before and allows for strength increasing, is your assertion, and I’m inclined to disagree, but even if it CAN occur, the point at issue here is about training methodology – how to approach training, specifically for people without a good “strength base.”

The idea of a “strength base” has never been that a trainee can’t gain any muscle at all until reaching a certain threshold of strength. The idea is that focusing on strength (i.e., on rep ranges typically used to cultivate strength), will drive an optimal balance of neural and muscular adaptation in most beginner and intermediate trainees. More advanced hypertrophy-specific techniques should wait until this “strength base” has been developed, because – while they may work to some degree – they remain LESS EFFECTIVE than basic strength-focused lifting, until diminishing returns begin to set in. (i.e., it becomes incrementally harder to add weight to the bar, and doing so no longer promotes hypertrophy at an optimal rate). That is the idea of a “strength base”; it’s not something I made up.

Okay, but not all training methods produce equal degrees of neural adaptation. It is well-documented that lower rep ranges (1-5) contribute more to neural adaptation than higher rep ranges. This is a crucial point, and the reason why a beginner might bench press 3x5, even if it’s not optimal for hypertrophy, rather than 5x12.

[quote]dt79 wrote:
This is also exactly what I wrote.
[/quote]

We seem to disagree on the meaning of the word “exactly.”

[quote]dt79 wrote:

But you wrote this:

Then he would be gaining mainly fat if he gains weight without gaining muscle. Do you still not see the flaw in logic? If that were the case we would see most beginners becoming fat asses in their first few months of training until they reach some arbitary level of strength.
[/quote]

The fat gain issue is really missing the point. I do believe a fully untrained person new to weightlifting wouldn’t necessarily need a caloric surplus for the first couple weeks, depending on starting strength, as nearly all the adaptation will be neural. But they would still need to increase calories to account for the additional exercise, and it obviously wouldn’t hurt to go into a surplus, as fat gain over just a couple weeks is not a significant factor, and hypertrophy may occur. In any case, it’s moot, because you don’t know exactly how much hypertrophy is going to occur or when. When I started lifting, hypertrophy probably started immediately, as I had an okay strength base just from doing push-ups and situps. My point was that hypertrophy doesn’t necessarily start immediately for untrained beginners, as the loads have to be heavy enough to damage the muscle fibers.

[quote]dt79 wrote:

It is not enough stimulus to make him big but it is enough to make him bigger than when he was benching 50x3x5 and several pounds lighter.
[/quote]

Well, he benched 65x3x5 his first day in the gym. He’s now gone up to 100x3x5 over ~2 months, and has not noticed and upper body muscle gain.

My explanation is that the load has been enough to drive neural gains but not significant muscular adaptation. What’s your explanation?

[quote]dagill2 wrote:
So, to summarise:

People train in different ways for different goals.

I think that might be the end of this thread.[/quote]

Just flew over your head.

Hopefully you’ll get a grasp of it when you gain more experience. Until then, don’t be so dismissive and judgmental. You won’t learn anything that way.

Good luck.

[quote]craze9 wrote:
Well, he benched 65x3x5 his first day in the gym. He’s now gone up to 100x3x5 over ~2 months, and has not noticed and upper body muscle gain.

My explanation is that the load has been enough to drive neural gains but not significant muscular adaptation. What’s your explanation?[/quote]
I would basically agree with that. I’m not sure the load is enough to drive much neural gains yet though, beyond basic coordination, balance and firing patterns. When I say neural gains, I’m talking about the ability to recruit more motor units, which may not be quite what you mean.

I think he’s probably just too new to the lift to get much for gains of any sort, and it’s not until he starts nearing his true 5RM territory that he’s going to see gains of either sort. That’s not to say that the slow and steady process he’s going through doesn’t have any value; I mean, you have to learn how to bench press before you can get better at bench pressing.

Once he does start getting to a point where the weights are actually getting heavy, I’d expect he’s at a point where hypertrophy will start to happen, and food will be necessary. He can certainly continue to get stronger without additional food, to a point, but getting bigger will require food.

That’s my take at least.

[quote]Jarvan wrote:

[quote]dagill2 wrote:
So, to summarise:

People train in different ways for different goals.

I think that might be the end of this thread.[/quote]

Just flew over your head.

Hopefully you’ll get a grasp of it when you gain more experience. Until then, don’t be so dismissive and judgmental. You won’t learn anything that way.

Good luck.[/quote]

I think you misinterpreted my post. I’m not judging how you train at all. My point is that your way of training is effective for your goals, and Reeds is effective for his. Comparing the two seems to me to be irrelevant when you have totally different goals.

I also don’t like the attitude that so often comes out in these threads that “my way is right and your way will give you dick cancer”. We all know there’s plenty of ways to skin a cat, and we might all learn something useful if we start listening and stop trying to kneecap everyone who trains differently from us.

I find your way of training interesting, I’m not going to adopt it wholesale but I do think there’s things I can learn from it.

I was merely pointing out that I had written the same thing before you decided to engage in this debate.

[quote]dt79 wrote:
any form of weight progression that challenges and forces the body to adapt and get stronger will induce hypertrophy, regardless of the load used.

You say this is EXACTLY the same as:

dt79 wrote:
the part about needing a “strength base” is false. What is really needed is progression , and in the case of a beginner, quantifiable progression while he gains experience, hence the focus on numbers. Strength will come with muscle growth.

Maybe I’m going crazy, but they don’t look exactly the same to me at all.

In the latter statement, you take issue with the idea of a strength base, and state that “strength will come with muscle growth.” [/quote]

Let me try to break it down as simply as I can:

I bench 135lbs today. My eyes nearly pop out of their sockets from the strain. My body, sensing danger during the last few reps, activates more muscle fibers as the initial ones fatigue, which eventually also fatigue resulting in muscular failure. Thus, I have placed a growth stimulus on my body and when I go home and consume excess calories, my muscles grow.

The next week I am able to bench 145lbs for the same amount of reps because of this growth (and yes, neural adaptation etc), and taking this 145lbs to failure, in turn, causes a further growth stimulus.

Therefore, strength will come with muscle growth(and, yes, for the upteenth time neural adaptation, technical improvement, minute changes in leverages due to weight gain etc etc are factors too).

Does this make sense?

I don’t dispute this. Better hope bull_scientist doesn’t read this lol.

Nope I have asserted none of this. The statement I made was in context of the article, where it was written that a trainee needs a “strength base”, which implies every beginner must use a full body pure strength training program or similar, before training for hypertrophy.

I find this absurd because if I, on the other extreme (not saying I would do it), start a beginner on a bro split, and he adds 10lbs to his main lifts every month, he is essentially achieving this “strength base” while getting the benefits of a program with more variety of exercises and more condusive to hypertrophy.

Now you may argue about pure strength/ full body programs potentially providing better results but from the posts here by beginners claiming they’re stalling before squatting 185lbs when they’ve just really not been eating enough to GAIN BODYWEIGHT, which implies the necessity of muscle growth, it doesn’t really seem to be true does it?

However, please do not misunderstand that I am against full body training. I believe it will pack on the muscle just fine. What I’m pointing out is the adherence to common dogma causing these flaws in logic.

This is what I agree with.

But you wrote this:

I’ll not playing with semantics here. You could expand on your previous statements though.

But I’m not disputing this other than the concept of a “strength base” BEFORE training for hypertrophy.

If I pyramid all my compound exercises up to a heavy set of 4-6 reps and try to go heavier every session, work up to 8-10 reps on secondary exercises, and finally doing some pump stuff with assorted isolations, how am I not training for strength as well? This is how bodybuilders I used to train with did it.

It’s all these new fancy “pure hypertrophy” programs that are confusing people, which is also why I wrote about the importance of QUANTIFIABLE PROGRESSION - chasing numbers when training to gain size in the first place.

But you wrote MONTHS.

We will have to agree to disagree because I realise this is going nowhere but heed my warning, the Cult of Rippetoe will be on your ass sooner that you can say GOMAD.

[quote]Well, he benched 65x3x5 his first day in the gym. He’s now gone up to 100x3x5 over ~2 months, and has not noticed and upper body muscle gain.

My explanation is that the load has been enough to drive neural gains but not muscular adaptation. What’s your explanation? [/quote]

There are multiple reasons why a trainee won’t grow including lack of food intake, improper diet, lack of effort, genetics, improper recovery, hormones, response to training variables such as rep ranges, frequency, limb length vs tension on target muscles etc.

Why not ask why someone like Eric Cressey who deadlifts 600lbs doesn’t look like he lifts? Or the typical tall and skinny guys we all see in the gym deadlifting 400lbs?

How about the untrained but naturally muscular guys that are much weaker but have more muscle mass than a skinny fat beginner who has been sparing no effort in his training for over a year?

I have my own examples of real life scrawny, weak and untrained kids blowing up in the first few months of training but I’m too tired to go into them, so I’ll just leave it be.

Have a Merry Christmas.