I don’t know, maybe. I’ll probably get the new book when it’s done but until then calling myself an athlete is pretentious at best and insulting at most. On the aesthetics/performance spectrum I’m more keen on training for aesthetics if I’m being truly honest with myself.
Strategically, getting to 300-400-500 without gaining weight too quickly is my most immediate concern. I can bench and squat twice a week without aggrevating some stuff, but I don’t know for how long. Three times and it flares up.
More variation makes the goal take longer to reach but if I can get there without being injured and still enjoy my training then that is the way to go.
With regards to warming up, if your schedule allows, do it before breakfast. I believe Kurz was a big proponent of morning dynamic stretching for martial artists. @Christian_Thibaudeau is probably more well-read up on how far disjointed some pre-training mobility work can be from a training session for it to still reduce risk of injury.
Also, laying out a session strategically so that you say hit your posterior before squatting might be smart (or superset antagonist movements to save on time) and use your rest periods for warming up and activating muscles for your next exercise.
If I understand correctly, this study compares not only frequency but also split - FBW v:s Upper/Lower. I remember CT saying that split is the least important variable, but I have strong suspision, that in case of such study it may make some difference regarding results (e.g. less training effort on FBW maybe). I would like to see results of similiar study that compares Upper/Lower (4 days) with Push/Pull (4 and/or 6 days).
Does the theme have any implication on nutritional needs? I know it has been written in the past that accentuated eccentrics impair glycogen re-synthesis among other things, and I’m just playing the guessing game but I “feel” as if a contraction day would benefit from carbs more-so than an isometric day.
Obviously not something that would matter for most trainees. Just curious.
To be more precise, it is the high level of inflamation that can slow down glycogen resynthesis. Accentuating can lead to more muscle damage (not always, it depends on how you are performing the eccentric, with what load, the volume,etc.) and more damage means more inflamation which can slow down re-synthesis.
Well, that is 100% accurate if we are talking about pure isometrics (e.g. pushing/pulling agaist pins, or just holding a weight in place). Isometrics lead to a much lower energy expenditure and glycogen use then concentric actions. Furthermore, dynamic muscle contractions likely increase glut-4 more than isometric, improving glucose uptake by the muscles to a greater degree.
However on the isometric days most of the time we perform the eccentric and concentric phase of the lift too, we just add an isometric component. for example adding 1-3 pauses (2-3 sec each) during the eccentric phase of each rep. In that case the carb/energy requirement would be as high, if not higher, than with regular lifting.
Right, my initial inclination was to program static holds at sticking points for long durations (30+ seconda) but I realise that might not be very sport-specific and might best be reserved for an accumulation block (if at all).
Absolutely correct. I sometimes use overcoming isos (pushing/pulling against pins), but maybe in one phase out of 9 and sometimes loaded stretching (which is a long duration holding isometric) in an accumulation phase.
Another, badly design (IMHO) study. They compared 3 days FBW with 6 days FBW and guess which won? It’s should be obvious that 6 days was less optimal for recovery, especially that participants trained same muscles everyday and taken ALL SETS TO FAILURE. And then You have message “Resistance Training Frequencies of 3 and 6 Times Per Week Produce Similar Muscular Adaptations in Resistance-Trained Men” floating around.
Limitation in the sense that those ratios are to evaluate the level of an athlete as a lifter. If you look at an offensive lineman of 300lbs and a body fat percentage of 25% and a linebacker of 245lbs and 8% body fat both have a similar amount of muscle mass (225lbs) but the lineman would have to post much higher numbers tobe considered “advanced”.
That’s what I mean. When you are training athletes (which is the population that the book I’m working on is targeting) you will be working with individuals with varied body compositions.
BUT despite that limitation (in the efficacy of the test) it is still a good objective starting point to now where to start with an athlete.