[quote]pat36 wrote:
I think the problem here actually is that we are galvanizing our theories and postulations so that the theories become compartmentalized it seems. It is obvious that various methodologies work because all muscle fibers have the potential increase size, endurance, and performance. Most methodologies do end up hitting all your MU’s one way or the other so many principals can cause muscle growth. I think the disconnect occurs when one somebody says that “this is the best way to ” when other methods have worked find in the past. After all, the guys with the biggest muscles are bodybuilders and yet they don’t typically lift heavy or fast.
CW’s method, the way I see it, is that a)if the HTMU’s have the best growth potential and b) the most efficient way to recruit them is heavy loads and/or explosive movements, then c) the best way to get the HTMU’s to grow is to lift heavy and fast while minimizing fatigue so you can repeat the same level of stress many times over.
After a while, though just like anything else, you’ll have to change it up. Most to of the time we seek fatigue to grow muscle and in this case we try to avoid it. I see it as a mathematical equation really. If we follow the avoidance of fatigue we should be able to move more over all weight over a given distance.
I think flipping back and forth between the two methodologies will in the end give the best results (and save your tendons and joints). Mainly, because the MU recruitment theories are good, but incomplete in my opinion. I can see it in myself. In between the lowest threshold MU and the highest threshold MU there are many different MUs with many different thresholds. Also, I believe the MU as a whole can be trained to behave differently to a degree. What I mean is that I think, you can train your HTMU’s to have more endurance as well as produce more force and I believe you can train the LTMU’s to produce more force as well as having more endurance. When I say a more I mean a little more, I am not saying you can train an HTMU to behave like a LTMU; just that it can perform it’s task a little longer and vice versa.
Actually, what I have been thinking about regarding CW’s methodology and it’s application is for in-season athletes. I talked with one football player about issues they have in season where they lose strength and size over the course of a season because they have to rest and cannot train like mad. They can’t go into a game sore and fatigued. I think CW’s theories would really, really make a huge difference for these athletes. Not only can they maintain size and strength, but even improve it during the course of a season. I’d love to try it or have somebody who has. I’d be very interested in the results.
Sorry for babbling on and on…
[/quote]
Hi Pat,
I agree with you, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using as many methods as needed to get the job done. The whole “this method is superior to that method” is pretty silly when you think about it. Honestly why people have such strong convictions towards training methodologies is beyond me.
Sure, if something works better FOR ME I’m going to stick to it and not be easily swayed by others telling me that because of some scientific study or what not that I should be training some other way. Hey I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m lifting in the pursuit of results. If a program is producing results, then that’s what I’m gonna keep doing until it stops or until there really is some concrete proof that a different system will produce superior results.
As far as bodybuilders not lifting heavy or fast, that’s kind of an overgeneralization. The truth is that there are quite a few bodybuilders out there, and not all of them train the same way. Some train with explosive tempos, some with slower tempos. Some train body parts multiple times per week, other only once per week. Some train with lighter weights and higher reps and really go for a “pump”, others train with heavier weights and lower reps and focus more on strength. As with the general population, it all comes down to the individual and what works best for them.
I’d also agree that the body has an amazing ability to adapt, and will make specific adaptations to the demands that you subject it to (SAID principle). That’s one of the reasons why multiple professional sport athletes are so rare. If you spend your life doing a specific activity (say sprinting since it’s a fairly uncomplicated sport), then your body is going to make specific adaptations that make you as good as you can be as a sprinter. If on the other hand you spent your whole life training to be a marathon runner, your body would once again adapt to the demands of marathon running.
So, in terms of physique oriented training, we need to look at those individuals who have built the type of physique that we want (and once again this is most definitely an individual thing) and then train the way that those individuals train. If our goals are performance oriented then we need to just be honest with ourselves and admit that, and then do whatever needs to be done to reach those goals.
Now, while I mentioned earlier about bodybuilders training differently, there are certain universal truths that can be gathered by observing their training (and the same can be said of most any activity), genetic freaks like Wheeler and Dillet are excluded from this as if you’ve got that type of genetics, you don’t really need to do anything special to build an incredible physique.
-
Once they reach their potential they are lifting considerably heavier weights than they started with. So, Progressive Overload is essential.
-
Along the same lines they also are eating considerably more calories than they were when they started. So, one needs to Eat Big.
-
They rest long enough (for their body) to allow them to continue to make progress.
Other than that, it’s all just personal preference IMO. Sure, certain methods seem to have more universal success. But once again, as long as the individual is making progress, then who really cares what specific program they’re following.
Finally in regards to CW’s methods and their relevance towards sports. Honestly, that’s what I believe they have the most benefit for. I am not (at least at this point) convinced that they are ideal for bodybuilders (people who’s primary goal is muscle). But, I do believe that they would be very beneficial for athletes, especially those who’s sport demands explosive strength (football players, sprinters, throwers, etc…).
Good training,
Sentoguy
*
