Eric on DH's Post..

I have a lot to say about all of this. Big surprise huh

Probably the majority of the things I post has to do with "modes of thought" rather than specific advice. In other words, my "outlook" or "philosophy" on training. This will be no different...I only want to discuss/backup a lot of the stuff DH has said in a general way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DH My Outlook on Training

Do YOU have an outlook? Do you have a philosophy. Chances are there are people who will read DH's article, if not here, than at IA's, and would like to single out comments or details and argue them. That happens to me all the time.

I think my patent response will now be "What is your outlook" (one the subject at hand or in general). Because IF you don't have a philosophy..you are standing on thin ice and all your arguments and "opinions" are like smoke to me.

No, I'm not talking about beginners asking questions and all of that. I'm talking about people who want to criticize the efforts of people like DH or myself but if asked, would not have a coherent viewpoint or consistent leaning on ANYTHING. That is the start of organization. Even if if as a beginner you are adopting the training philosophies of a few people that you trust and respect and who have shown themselves to be qualified, you will probably do better than NOT having that foundation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DH Lets look at something like the 5x5, made popular by guys like Bill Starr. It's a wonderful full body program. You'll also notice it has squatting three times a week (I recommend only two) and deadlifting in between. But, it HAS a system of checks and balances worked in. That means you're taking your KNOWN 1x5 RM and 5x5 RM and programming it into the final weeks of the program, then deducting from that in rather large increments back to week one (reverse planning). So what does that mean? It means the first two weeks are relatively easy and you're just getting used to the demands of the program, and teaching your body to tolerate the workload.

Expanding on what I was saying and bridging it with this...you take the typical guy who's been training in a completely disorganized fashion and probably mostly chest, lol, and put them on ANYTHING that is organized and is built on a solid rational their results will probably skyrocket. Given that some rationals are better than others, but ANY rational is probably better than NONE.

Taking fullbody 5x5's, besides the fact that it is built around the big compound lifts, what you have is a rationale. Going from Ronnie Coleman's training as told by Flex to any 5x5 method..well, I think it should be obvious that the results will seem miraculous by those standards.

I, like, DH, could look at the typical 5x5 and see some problems and especially if I was actually consdering individual needs. I definitely agree about the squatting thrice weekly in general as well.

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by DH I think what would help a lot of lifters is to think for themselves lol

Well, you know you said something also about HIT, but I think you can go so far as to blame trends in general. People are looking for the "way". They're looking for a bible. Most don't want to except responsibility for their own training. 

People mistake METHODS for PRINCPLES. Bottom line. Like I said before 5x5's are usually built on a rationale and that is better than no rationale but at it's heart is is a "method". Someone has success doing some 5x5 and suddenly it's their fundamental training principle. Not only is it recommended across the board to everyone and anyone but they will keep on doing it forever thinking that it is "the way" 

That's no different than HST OR HIT in a way. 

What I think is important to realize is that a very knowledgable and experienced trainer or "coach", their training philosophy is built around the successes and failures they've had, their observations, theory, reading, all sorts of things. But you can be sure that when you see a "program" that if they are good, they have a "philosophy" that governs that. Big problem though...

We talk alot about the beginner, intermediate, and advanced as told by guys like Rippetoe. Now, I can explain in depth his "philosophy" and understand it. But what I also understand is that it is built around his rationale for training, his failures and success, his observations, his pool of knowledge he can pull from. So the "programs" fit in with the defintions. 

Trying to take those programs and the definitions they are built on and generalize them is the mistake most people make. 

Whether it's 5x5's, HIT, or HST. How many people think that a "deconditioning" week is paramount for "hypertrophy"? Because HST tries to prove that. 

I remember when the "Texas Method" was being popularized and suddenly I was seeing a bunch of people appying "TM" to their customized split, lol. It's a method, folks. What is the underlying ratinale. How far can that take you? when is it appropriate and not appropriate and how can it be programmed in the most efficient way? Are their particular parts of it that are valuable to you throughout your training career? Are there other parts of it that will only prove to be applicaple at any given time in that career?

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by DH That's the problem with those dual factor articles that spread like wildfire around the forums a couple of years ago. Certainly a breach of fresh air, and a hundred times more beneficial than just going on a week's vacation (unless overtrained). Unless it's a specific type of programming that uses volume and intensity cycling, I've found that planning deloads too far in advanced is very "hit or miss" and about as unspecific as guessing the supercompensation wave.

To me, that right there was more of the same thing I was just talking about. The "dual factor" 5x5's, as they were popularized, were methods. Dual Factor theory itself is NOT a method. It is a training model. A theory, if you will. 

One of my BIG problems is gurus discovering a new pet theory, coming up with a program and trying to tell you that a program is a principle. 

Need I mention HST again. It's no different a phenomena. Take out "deconditioning" and you have short linear periodization. Takes the magic out of all the "theory" right there. Inefficient programming is inefficient programming. 

As I've said about a million times, good training is builit on a sound knowledge of good training, not theories. 

Keep in mind, as I say all this, that this is just me taking DH's article and sounding off. If I seem to differ with any detail that DH may have said, keep in mind it's only details. We do not disagree on the fundamentals. My purpose is to expand on and backup DH's stuff, not to debate it. I'm just excited and inspired by his articles.

You’ve been led to believe that this whole “DFT” loading thing is some kind of advanced strength protocol. I've probably said too many times already that any 5x5 is middle ground strength/mass work. It is one way to skin a cat IF it suits. And you can say that about anything.


But here is the big problem. It doesn’t really allow you to work on individual lifts based on your needs for those lift. It doesn’t allow you to periodize those lifts. It doesn’t allow you to pick one or two priority lifts to use more advanced protocols on….in short it is amateurish and shortsighted and you are simple trading volume for intensity and productivity. INTENSITY must CERTAINLY be a bigger factor than VOLUME in strength work. 

Another big problem is QUANTITY over QUALITY. 

We all know that sometimes that “effort” to get through that faitigue or to get up that one big rep, or even to fail helps us a lot. But that should not be the way the MAJORITY of our lifting is. All this downer trip I’m on about Rippetoes…that’s part of it. The whole damn thing is about reps, sets, VOLUME. That is all Rip knows, and I got news for you, bro, he knows a limited amount just like anyone does. So people spend all their time doing a bunch of shitty ‘reps’ intead of really learning the concept of quality. I know I'm preaching to the choir with some of you but I wonder if you've learned what that can mean. 



Yes, the beginner only needs more general stuff but no, not everybody is the fucking same! LOL.

OK in order to distribute stress we basically need to understand about the effects of fatigue. The only reason you can load in this aggressive manner with volume loading protocols without getting weaker is, because, simply speaking the CNS effects are just not that strong. You’re basically getting metabolic “volume” fatigue and a generalized kind of fatigue in terms of your body’s reaction. The body does not distinquish between these stressors. Ask yourself how this concept of building up a lot of “faitigue” really relates to “gaining strength”. It only does in a very roundabout way. You are basically trying to juggle chainsaws, donuts, feathers, and needles at the same time. Because all you can FEEL is the endocrine effects. I.E. you only know when to stop when “you feel overtrained” or have started to overreach. 

Pituitary-adrenal-gonadal responses to high-intensity resistance exercise overtraining.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9843563

Catecholamine responses to short-term high-intensity resistance exercise overtraining.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...gdbfrom=pubmed

Resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching. Neuroendocrine responses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9068095?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.P ubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pu bmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedreviews&lo gdbfrom=pubmed


PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES ARE BETTER DETECTORS OF OVERTRAINING THAN PHYSIOLOGICAL VARIABLES 
Theriault, D., Richard, D., Labrie, A., & Theriault, G. (1997). Physiological and psychological variables in swimmers during a competitive season in relation to the overtraining syndrome. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29(5), Supplement abstract 1237. 

MONITORING OVERTRAINING - ANOTHER ATTEMPT 
Hill, M. R., Motl, R. W., Estle, J., & Gaskill, S. (1997). Validity of the stamina index test for monitoring elite athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29(5), Supplement abstract 46. 

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS DO NOT RECOGNIZE OVERTRAINING 
Van Heest, J. L., Skinner, J., Cappaert, J. M., Rodgers, C. D., & Ratliff, K. (1966). Monitoring training stress in elite swimmers using biological markers. Medicine and Science in Exercise and Sports, 28(5), Supplement abstract 1083. 

BLOOD FACTORS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH OVERTRAINING 
Rowbottom, D. G., Keast, D., Goodman, C., & Morton, A. R. (1995). The haematological, biochemical and immunological profile of athletes suffering from the overtraining syndrome. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 70, 502-509. 

DIAGNOSING OVERTRAINING WITH BLOOD FACTORS IS OF LIMITED VALUE 
Lehmann, M., Wieland, H., & Gastmann, U. (1997). Influence of an unaccustomed increase in training volume vs intensity on performance, hematological and blood-chemical parameters in distance runners. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 37, 110-116. 

BLOOD AND ENDOCRINOLOGICAL PARAMETERS NOT RELATED TO THE ONSET OF OVERTRAINING 
Knizia, K., Gastman, U., Netzer, N., & Steinacker, J. M. (1997). Monitoring high-intensity endurance training using resting hematological, blood-chemical, and serum/plasma endocrinological parameters. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29(5) , Supplement abstract 1267. 

BLOOD FACTORS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH RESPONSES TO INTENSIFIED TRAINING 
Mackinnon, L. T., Hooper, S. L., Jones, S., Gordon, R. D., & Bachmann, A. W. (1997). Hormonal, immunological, and hematological responses to intensified training in elite swimmers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29, 1637-1654.

But guess what, such a feeling wouldn’t be TOO much different than training for swimming. Does swimming make you stronger? It makes your stronger at swimming. BTW, the dual factor training model was developed looking at endurance athletes and swimmers in particular. 

I hope this is making sense. This over-reaching is volume over-reaching. IF you were to over-reach with CNS intensive work you wouldn’t get ANY endocrine effects! You wouldn’t hardly have anything to go on except on thing…..you’d get weaker at whatever intensity range you had over-reached at. 

But when you use “general fatigue” as a benchmark for periodization you get all these different fatigue affects but if you get weaker….you don’t know what the hell is up whether it’s the CNS or “you’re just tired” and need recovery time. So, when you mix it all together in this big lump, for one thing, you will never know how heavy you can and can’t lift and for how long. I could go on and on but sufficeth to say that this is all a big tadoo about nothing. Yes, we will be deloading. But no we don’t need to use fatigue as a METHOD of strength training. IT’s a SIDE EFFECT, lol. 


When it comes to fatigue in general you can basically say that you have either more immediate but short lasting effects or less immediate but larger and longer lasting. Now, if you do really high intensity CNS intensive work you will basically feel it right after but the fatigue will dissipate really quickly. Why? Basically low volume. The actuall affects on the CNS you really won’t be able to tell. So keep that in mind for later on. 

Bascially if you take out the notion of work at 90% of 1RM or above you can basically say that the fatigue from “VOLUME” will last longer than the fatigue from more maximal work of lesser volume. When I say more maximal I don’t mean MAXIMAL. It’s oversimplified because of “power work” and such but it will serve. (It doesn’t all have to be perfect it only matters if you get results).

http://www.bodybuilding.net/training...real-5236.html

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by DH First there's a lot of differences between "overreaching" and "overtraining", so don't lump them together. Oftentimes, the less experienced don't know when to stop, nor the difference between feeling "a little run down" vs. completely burnt out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DH There's 3 effects of training stress: 1) Fatigue 2) Overreaching 3) Overtraining The first two will of course lead to a light reduction in your training capabilities which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The third one is when the lifter is too late. So, when you schedule random deloads far in advance without taking into account your recovery abilities, demands of the program, diet, sleep, stress, ect what you're doing is one of three things. One, you could just get lucky and guess right. Two, you deload well before adaption takes place from your training which makes everything you done up to that point pretty worthless. Three, by the time you deload on that magical week you slated in, it could be too late. If it IS too late (ie. overtraining vs. overreaching), then your deload would probably be more than one week OFF for sure (ie. you've officially fucked yourself). But remember, this applies more towards high intermediats and advanced lifters because novices can supercompensate faster thus never accumulating fatigue.

Overtraining as a term is used differently by different physiologists. I think it is important to understand, however, that “overtraining” and “overtraining syndrome” are not the same thing. Overtraining is what you do..the stimulus. Overtrainng syndrome is a list of physiological symptoms resulting from that. In other words, it’s manifestations. 

This may seem like semantics but I assure you it is not. To illustrate this let’s compare overtraining to a virus. If you know anything about viruses then you’ll know that it is not their intention to produce specific symptoms in a host. It is not their intention to make you sick at all let alone to produce any specific reaction. If they have an intention (which of course they don’t, lol) it would be to magnify themselves. Period. 

So with any virus there is a list of general and specific symptoms associated with that virus. You need enough of them and in the right combination to be reasonably certain that you have “VIRUS A”. And even then it’s a crapshoot. Virus A may or may not produce a fever, for example. 

The reason I’m making this comparison is because overtraining can be the same. That is why so many trainers make very conservative recommendations as far as deloading or time off. Just because there is no fever you can’t say for sure it’s virus A. And just because there is not a certain symptom of overtraining syndrome you can’t say it ain’t overtraining. 

Overtraining, at least at first, MAY OR MAY not produce a decline in performance. Just like virus A may or may not produce a fever. I’m putting a wrench in things but I’ll try to fish it out as I go. 

Nowadays, what we do is use the term overreaching. We use this to define the first stage of overtraining and sometimes to describe overtraining without a performance decline. 

This goes back to the beginner, intermediate, etc. thing. I’ve been down on starting strength. Well the above is a big part of the reason why. You can open youself up to overtraining and some manifestations of that while “making progress” on a program like SS. Because you can begin to overreach without seeing performance decriments. You can increase load on the bar for a while DESPITE the accumulation of fatigue. It is not correct to assume that progress means NO fatigue. That’s not how it works. Read my article on fitness-fatigue is you want to know what I mean. “Fitness” can accumulate too. Sometimes by the time ACUTE accumulated fatigue MASKS fitness you find out in unpleasant ways. Like injuries due to technical failure. I’m not trying to be an alarmist or ultra-conservative. In fact I am anything but. I’m just stating the A, B’s, and C’s.

Look at it this way. Doing TOO much TOO soon is a type of overtraining. Most people will accept this without question if you tell them. They may not stop doing too much but they'll know you're right. SO, you are going to tell me that we can define how much squatting is too much too soon because we have magically come up with the optimum set/rep range for a general population from which they can "recover" on a workout to workout basis sans "fatigue". Yeah...

Understanding a bit about Sympathetic Overtraining Syndrome versus Parasympathetic Overtraining Syndrome may help to tease out and make sense of some of that. Basically sympathetic is increased sypathetic activity at rest. Whereas parasympathetic is increased sympathetic activity at rest and with exercise. 

Does that mean everyone should plan a deload every 4 weeks? Or six weeks? Or whatever arbitrary time someone tells you? No. Ummm…see DH’s comment of A DAY OFF, lol. You know there are very authoritative statements still posted on this forum that would lead people to believe that basically, you’re not allowed to take a day off. Honestly, lol, I don’t pay much attention to frequency and protein syntheis and all the various other physiological details when it comes to training. I pay attention to results.

I guess I could some up what I am saying with a that very simply. Fatigue, whether it's absence or presence, is not such a good thing to lay your training hat on. 

You need to develop a deeper knowledge or yourself if you want to be ultimately successful in training yourself. You have to be willing to experiment, observe results or lack of results, observe others, READ, plan, think, synthesize...or, in other words, learn to think for yourself, like Darkhorse said at the onset.

So I don't to come off like I'm having a SLEEPER moment and I'm saying training is a feel experience, lol. I think having knowledge over yourself, you needs, your reactions is not just about being instintual. I think you are making educated decisions when you do that, not just going by subjective "feelings".

Since just about everytime someone brings up deloading or overtraining the term "CNS" comes up, I cannot harp on this enough. 

I think I may have posted this all before but what the heck:

I’ve been talking about “cns instensive” training. I used this term simply to separate out the more maximal strength training from “other” training. A few points need to be made on all that:

1.Everything you do affects your CNS to some degree. Just lesser intensities affect if less, but speed of movement, etc…and ANYTHING is at play here.

2.The whole CNS thing and CNS fatigue has gotten ridiculous and has been blown way out of proportion. I have spoken of the ridiculousness of the average person doing average training trying to separate out “CNS fatigue”…you can’t hardly do it for reasons I’ve mentioned.

3.EVERYTHING you read you have to consider that persons BOX. What applies to them and their trainees does not necessarily apply to you. This is the number one biggest mistake people make…reading some new thing and turning it into their bible. 

4.Some of this over-reaction to CNS stuff has been do to post failure and post post failure training. Not the same as all maximal strength training. The body is not THAT damn fragile. 

5.Usually when big name guys talk about CNS fatigue they are referring to the max effort method. 

It is beyond me why people would think that maximal strength training only means max effort method. Sure you may want to limit max effort to non-consecutive days, or only two days at the beginning, or what have you…but all maximal strength training does not have to be max effort and even though this whole CNS thing has been blown out of proportion see number one about intensity.

6.Keep in mind that with coaches training athletes they may be dong a whole lot more “cns intensive” stuff than you or me. Besides heavy squats and OL lifts, there may be plyos, sprints, all sort of stuff that is high intensity in nature.

7.What applies to some guy nearing his genetic level in strength probably doesn’t apply to most of us.

8.There are SO many factors that can affect your ability to lift on any given day it is ridiculous to think you can factor out one single thing. People make a big thing about about CNS burnout or desensitization but in experimentation you find that it is actually VERY hard to really bring this about.

9.When researchers do try to bring this about they use, of course ridiculous methods. For instance having a training group do 1RM training every single day for two or three weeks. This is because they are not interested in how to regulate it they are monitoring the body for ways to DETECT it…and finding that this is hard to do. This doesn’t apply to us. 

10.Given all that the best thing to do is react to WHAT HAPPENS not what you THINK will happen. This is my whole problem with so many “methods”. They are based on assumptions. And we know what assumptions do…

11.It is reasonable to be cautious and most people will take steps to ensure they don’t train to the point they start to lose a significant amount of ability. But this doesn’t mean you have to treat your body like it is made of…I don’t know…something really fragile. Crystal?

We'd have to sacrifice some stuff but I think if DH comes back into it and we keep adding it maybe could be arranged.

So I saved "Working Class Hero" till this morning. What an excellent article. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read that kind of realistic take on training. I agree times one hundred. 

Many times we focus on what we CAN'T instead of what we can. Nothing more defeating than that. 

You know, DH was saying about how you may tend to do, as per his example, 4 days a week becasue everybody says you must, etc. I've made a comment a few times about considering the "box" someone is in when you here their advice. Whoever "everybody" happens to be, many times, their opinions on how you should train can say more about them than it does about you. Always keep that in mind.

BTW, something I meant to point out about overtraining but forgot to is that the great majority of research on it is in regards to aerobic and endurance activity. People love to carry on about the effects of high intensity and act like it is something that is completely understood but it is barely even begun to be understood in depth. Most everything is theory and as far as CNS intensive "overtraining" there really is not much research on it at all and what little there is..well, the studies fail to actually illict a discreet overtraining "syndrome". I put in a whole bunch of sources.

I'll let DH answer the question specifically and I'll just speak about deloading in general. The intensity reset is, quite frankly, something I've found to be, through my own experience, and a lot of harcore learning not necesssary for "most" lifters and certainly not for those in the intermediate phase using volume protocols like 5x5. 

First to repeat my mantra a few times: Quality over quantity. Quality over quantity. 

Now..the classic deload is simply to reduce volume by 40 percent and maintain or even raise intensity. Apply that to whatever days of the week and whatever movements it is needed. In most cases whith any 5x5 setup you can reduce volume and maintain or raise intensity across the board but you only need to apply it religously to the highest volume days. 

The thing is you would be best not waiting for a complete plateau with that. A little before. Basically when you find quality going down the tube. Percieve effort can help you with that. I.E. the a given weight simply feels heavier than it should and the effort it takes to lift it feels unnaturally high. You haven't lost absolute ability yet, though. 

Now, that may or not be a "planned" deload. And I don't think it is necessary for everyone to plan deloads at arbitrary times. But some people are less in tune to themselves due to experience than others, so....

However, as far as the planning aspect of it it helps to think of your "deload" as your peak. After all, in this case you are hoping to raise intensity. It would be good not to miss reps at whatever volume range you reduce it too. Keep that in mind. 

So in other words you are recovering from the volume but trying to LIFT HEAVIER. So you're not exactly just being a wimp about things with your deload which is how some people view a planned one. Just think of it as how you cycle your workouts. I.E. I "peak" at this time. 

With a 5x5 setup after a peaking week I would suggest a building back up to the volume. So instead of building the intensity you keep the intensity and build the sets. 

The length of the deload will depend on just how long you've been training. But if it takes longer than two weeks to recover from a volume protocol...imo, you've overloaded too long and you are risking injury, immuno supression, etc..

I know that goes against, a little, the DFT 5x5 protocol. But I'm talking about the recovery aspect of it.

Shit, that was more than I meant to write.

"My Training History" by 0311 / Darkhorse

My name everywhere else is Darkhorse, named after the good times in Iraq with 3/5 India Co. 



I had some pretty bad habits since joining the Marine Corps back in 1999. Most notably, I never really worked legs, and never deadlifted in favor of different rowing variations. I had two theories back then. One was that I didn’t want to work my legs since I was always running and hiking every day being in the infantry. Being a non commissioned officer, if I was to fall out of a hike, I didn’t think the excuse of doing squats the day before would fly lol. The second reason was what I’m sure 90% of trainees think in the back of their minds: Girls pay more attention to the guns than quads!

So what happens when you don’t focus very much on the squat and deadlift? Well, all my lifts hit a plateau. So did my weight gain. I’ve always had some good genetics, and weight gains for me would come in bunches. I’d have three pounds gained in one week, check the scales a few weeks after that and be five pounds heavier, which was always followed by a long dry spell before magically gaining again. Mind you, I’m talking about after I got back from Iraq weighing a very unnatural and undernourished 160 lbs, so the gains were almost entirely muscle. 

Back then, it wasn’t unheard of to have my spotter pick up the heavy dumbbells and hand them to me to rest on my knees before a hardcore incline set. A lot of my lifts suffered because of my weak links. Most notably among my muscle groups was my back days. My lower chain couldn’t handle the weight my upper body could pull. Barbell rows, T-bar rows, ect. I’d have to continuously lower the weight in favor of dropping my upper body lower to the ground. 

Here is a piece of my journal I found back in the beginning of 2005.

2005

Monday

-Legs
1.Squats: 225 x 6, 275 x 6, 275 x 6
2.Front Leg Extensions: Used the stack for 3 sets of 6
3.Stiff Leg Deadlifts: 225 x 6, 275 x 6, 275 x 6

Tuesday

-Chest/Abs
1.Flat Bench Press: 315 X 6, 335 X 5, 335 X 4
2.Incline Barbell: 275 X 5, 275 X 5, 275 X 5
3.Decline Barbell: 275 X 5, 275 X 5
4.Weighted Dips: 45 X 8

If you cannot see a major discrepancy between upper and lower, then you’re lost in the sauce LOL.

That’s the point when I really started reading the forums. I came in thinking I was the bomb benching 365 x 1 staying 100% natural when many others were struggling with 315 lbs mid cycle! However, I had a dark secret: My squatting sucks and deadlifting was almost non existent. First time I tried deadlifting, I was able to get 315 x 8 if I remember correctly. So I wasn’t in terrible shape, but knew that if I TRULY wanted that barrel chest and 20 inch arms, I’d have to seriously address those deficiencies.

Where to go from here? Well, I started doing some heavy reading. One article I remember more than most was from Brawn called, “Squatting for Big Arms”. I thought it was bullshit until I really thought about the MESSAGE it was trying to convey: 

Big full body lifts = Big full body growth response!

I came to the ultimate conclusion that I needed a program that was completely modeled around the squat and deadlift. I chose the 5 x 5 which was a three times a week, full body workout program. The programs themselves were modeled by Bill Starr. To me it just made sense to invest some serious time into squatting three times a week to bring it up. Of course NOW I’d neverhang with that, but back then it was perfect.

So, I remained on Bill Starr’s 5 x 5. My first full run through was a big success. I still have my old journal for that as well. Here’s the totals:

Week Four: Max 5x5, 1x5

Olympic squats: 245 (5x5), 275 (5x5 pyramid)
Deadlifts: 345 (5x5)

Week Eight: Max 3x3, 1x3

Olympic squats: 290 (3x3), 315 (1x3 pyramid)
Deadlifts: 440 (1x3)

Upon completion of the program, I continued addressing my weak points with an upper/lower setup. After that, I went back to the dual factor 5x5 and ran back to back volume phases which saw my A2G squat go up to 315 x 6 butt sitting on calves. From then on, I was in the zone. I had developed such a liking for squats and deadlifts that I spent the next year conjugate training. Shortly thereafter I’ve found my way to working with ironaddict trying to continue increasing my lifts while cutting down the fat.

All of which brings me to today. I have seen an incredible amount of carry-over to all my lifts. All my plateaus were shattered. I increased my muscle mass substantially, my old favorite bench pressing went from 365 x 1 to 405 x 1 no problem. My ass to the grass squatting hit an all time high of 440 lbs, and 530 lbs deadlifting raw (belted only). And remember me mentioning the “Squatting for Big Arms” article? Well, in my case I added another 1 ¾” to my arms bringing them a shade under 20”.

So where am I now?

My number one goals are STRENGTH and CONDITIONING. Dave Tate has said, "Get in shape to train, don't train to get in shape." There was plenty of times over the years where I'd have to lay down on a bench between sets because I was winded. Other times I'd need 3 minutes between sets which is fucking pathetic. 

Problem has since been solved, bigtime. Nowadays, I drag my sled twice a week for conditioning on my off days. Training days I've incorpertated around 10-15 minutes of warmups before training. As detailed in elitefts's basic training manual, I'll do a circuit on upper body days consisting of gluteham raises or reverse hypers, pushups, rows, and abs. I started off with just one run through, but now I can do 3 run throughs with fairly heavy weight without it affecting anything other than increasing my PR's. Along with all that, I've really been watching my stop watch between every set and keep STRICT rest periods. Using an upper day as an example, I could start with bench press w/ 2-3 minutes rest, then as my day progresses, the rest drops because to me, only the bench matters. By the end, I'd be doing some high rep band pressdowns w/ 20 seconds rest.

Training: I've had great success with moderate volume 4 day routines with a decent amount of overlapping for pure muscle mass, and a lot of it. However, the best routine is usually the hardest unfortunately lol. IA's 5x5 was perhaps the very best routine I've ever done for strength AND mass. I think one of my pics w/ the grey wife beater was towards the end of that program. I've been doing Westside for the longest time since then. 

Eventually though, as much as I love 4 day routines, I simply cannot continue on them in my predicament. I'm working upwards of 60+ hours a week on top of a family. So for the past few months I've been strength training THREE days a week max, and of course sled dragging in between. I'm only human lol, and I need my sleep. Still, I've been continuing to increase my strength bigtime with ONLY three days per week, and fairly low volume each day. That said, four exercises could take me almost an hour hauling ass because I have a great strength foundation.

So currently, it's only 3 days training in a gym, 1-2 days sled dragging per week. Dieting wise, I do very well with carbs in moderation. I'm using redpoint's cutting diet because I love the way they lay the carbs out. The beauty of that diet is that I use it consistantly even though I'm not even cutting lol. I just put the calories at 3,500 case closed.

__________________

My Outlook on Training

---

I'm not the biggest, nor the strongest here by any means lol. But I can say that after 10 years of the good, the bad, and the ugly, I know a lot more now than a few years ago. I've read many books that I absolutely recommend (Practical Programming, Serious Strength Training, Elitefts books, ect). With that said, here's something I wrote a while ago that I'd like to share.


Designing a routine is a system of checks and balances. 

If you do more of one thing, you need less of another. Make sense? Well, to the thousands of neophytes out there reading Flex Magazine, common sense gets replaced with spinning their wheels doing Ronnie Coleman's Back Routine. "Well, look what it did for him, right?"

Growth happens OUTSIDE the gym. That means get in, get the hell out, and put more time in at the dinner table and catching z's than suffering through a backbreaking amount of work in the gym. Training in the gym should be very tough, but if you find yourself suffering through or not completing your "pretty lookin' routine", then you're not going to make any measurable progress, period.

Lets look at something like the 5x5, made popular by guys like Bill Starr. It's a wonderful full body program. You'll also notice it has squatting three times a week (I recommend only two) and deadlifting in between. But, it HAS a system of checks and balances worked in. That means you're taking your KNOWN 1x5 RM and 5x5 RM and programming it into the final weeks of the program, then deducting from that in rather large increments back to week one (reverse planning). So what does that mean? It means the first two weeks are relatively easy and you're just getting used to the demands of the program, and teaching your body to tolerate the workload.

So what about split training? It DOES indeed deliver results, as with anything under the sun. There is no right or wrong when it comes to training. People have become very narrow minded lately, and I partially blame the HST "guru's" for that. Their argument stems from "only working a muscle every seven days." I'd agree with that, but what about the overlapping involved? Oops.. So if a trainee does "chest day" on Monday, then "arms day" on Thursday, would their chest get a lot of work in if they incorperated weighted dips, closegrip bench, or reverse grip? Absolutely, thereby working the muscles twice in a week. Or "legs day" on Tuesday, then "back day" on Friday in which Friday's session kicks off with some heavy deadlifting. Yep, legs get worked. Want more legs? Do some elevated deadlifts off a platform. Understand that most natty's need frequency to keep protein synthesis elevated for a longer period of time. But what about the guys squatting 500 lbs? Would it be feasable squatting every other day? Well, that depends. Technically, could they do a planned progression leading up to a 5-10 rep max? Perhaps, but now we're getting into individual recovery where some could, some couldn't. That simple.

The simplest solution is often obtained by choosing the path of least resistance IME. If someone is stuck in the mindset for years that they need to isolate their upper, lower, inner, and outer chest to grow and have an "effective" workout, and you tell them there's no such thing, would that automatically change their line of thinking? Highly doubtful.

Training with Ironaddict changed my views on many of things I took for granted. I think if anyone else was to educate me on some things, I'd think they were blowing smoke up my ass. I was fortunate enough to spend a year with him picking his brain. One of my favorite routines he came up with was only 3 days per week. Since I've been "free ballin'" now for the past year, I've been having a lot of success not only with myself, but with many people spread over a few other forums I've personally helped.

Taking a page from Jim Wendler's book, "Three Days Per Week", either you believe you can make tremendous gains in mass and strength with only three days per week or you don't. There's no magic cure for that. Instead of picking a laundry list of all the most popular exercises that you feel the need to do, try to pick 3-4 exercises that you feel you need the most per day. Remember what I said, growth happens outside the gym. Still not convinced about only 3 days? Check out all of Dante's guys DC training lol. Same three days per week, slightly different split, same frequency of once every five days -- And those guys are last I checked fairly XXL.

The split can be found everywhere on this forum that Ironaddict has posted time and again. Along with that, I'd like to post a few examples of "checks and balances" which ties everything together.

Monday: A) Chest/Shoulders/Triceps
Wednesday: B) Back/Biceps/Legs
Friday: C) Repeat Monday w/ NEW exercises

Monday: D) Repeat Wednesday w/ NEW exercises
Wednesday: A) Chest/Shoulders/Triceps
Friday: B) Back/Biceps/Legs

Then from there obviously you'd repeat workout C on Monday, D on Wednesday, and so forth. 

The most important aspect of this programming is to be PROGRESSIVE meaning you need to increase something every workout to beat the last. As Dante once said,"Volume is finite, Load is infinite." 

So why only pick three to a max of four exercises per day? Simple, it's to protect you from yourself! It literally forces you to pick ONLY the ones that are the best for YOU. Now, I'm not talking about everything being 3 sets either. If the exercise selection is low, guess what your check and balances will be? More sets x reps = volume. Along with that, throw a few wrenches into your workout to make it a bit more refreshing and increase the difficulty of the exercise. For example, I much prefer doing isolations with a longer tempo (increased TUT) and waay shorter rest periods. Another influence from IA.

In my experience, sometimes if you increase the difficulty of an exercise, the better results to be had. What I mean is that there's so much to do beyond a vanilla 3 x 10. Depending on YOUR recovery, there's lots of subtle, but effective tweeks you could do. If you're used to a workman's approach to deadlifts perpetually doing a few sets of 3-5 reps, try something radically different. Put them last in your workout. I've had killer results doing that knowing in my head it's "one and done" before I get to go home for the day. Another great great range is to do a max set of 3-5 reps, rest 5 minutes, take off some weight and do a max set of 8-10 reps. Personally my favorite approach made popular by DC and ironaddict.

Example day:

Monday:

DB Bench - 5 x 6-10
Incline Flyes - 3 x 10 (3-0-3 tempo)
Barbell Skullcrushers - 4 x 10 (90 seconds rest between sets)
Banded Upright Rows - 4 x 12-15 (45-60 seconds rest between sets)

^ The checks and balances here could be interchanging between a flat press and an inclined press for your pecs instead of trying to lump both together. For triceps you could have an isolation one workout, then a press such as weighted dips the other. Same concept with shoulder iso's one workout, then a press the other.

Wednesday:

Deadlifts - 3 x 5 (pyramid to top set) or something like a max triple, rest 5 minutes, then a backoff set of 8-12 reps.
Leg Press - 2 x 20
Weighted Pullups - 5 x 5
DB Curls - 3 x 15

^ The checks and balances here are the interchangable squats and deadlifts. That means if you do deadlifts, then you do a leg press. And if you do barbell squatting, then you could do a barbell or cable row. See how managable that is? Typically after a maximal effort and draining exercise like squats or deadlifts, you're pretty tired, one would hope. So it's much more feasable to do something not as mentally and physically draining.

So to sum up, if you're not honest with yourself, 9/10 you're going to go overboard with this stuff. Most bodybuilders today are so obsessive compulsive that they'll change their routine to "beautify" it on paper so many times that three days later it's completely different. Then by the time they get to the gym, they're dragging ass after 2/3 of it. So, by keeping it simple (acronym KISS), and limiting the OCD inside you to 3 to a max of 4 exercises per day, you'll be doing yourself a great service. You'll be mentally fresher, more motivated than ever, and as long as you save most of the work for the dinner table, you'll at least be headed in the right direction!

Deloading

---

Disclaimer: You'll see the word "me" used a lot lol, as I am not a trainer.  I'm using MY thread to keep me occupied 12 hours a night lol. Again, if you take something out of all this, great. If not, that's okay too. I'm just following Wes's lead and creating something that's an interesting read. I think that's what Wes was getting at with this subforum.

One thing that really helped me is to think outside the box when it comes to deloading. A deload week where you cut either the volume, frequency, or both is just ONE way of doing things. 

Another program I've done extremely well on is DC training. My first and second blast saw some gains, but not as much as I should've. I think the biggest reason for my shortcomings with that program was my line of thinking: 6 weeks until deload. I wish it were that simple to where your body has a built in alarm clock that buzzes in exactly "week X". 

I think what would help a lot of lifters is to think for themselves lol. How many lifters would extend their blast and continue making gains simply taking a single day off lol which is about all they needed, NOT a full week. I think that if you're training M, W, F, you could really extend your blast another couple of weeks by simply listening to your body and taking that Friday off which gives you Th, F, S, Su off. Something that simple could've really gone a long way with my training. Eventually, my subsequent blasts I was a bit more experienced and capable of going against my sexy looking spreadsheet and take that day lol.

That's the problem with those dual factor articles that spread like wildfire around the forums a couple of years ago. Certainly a breach of fresh air, and a hundred times more beneficial than just going on a week's vacation (unless overtrained). Unless it's a specific type of programming that uses volume and intensity cycling, I've found that planning deloads too far in advanced is very "hit or miss" and about as unspecific as guessing the supercompensation wave.

Finally, what's worked best for me is something IA turned me on quite a while ago lol. I usually work between a hypertrophy and strength phase. Hypertrophy phase for me was typically medium volume with more of a 4 day split with tons of overlapping given my strength and recovery. After 4-5 weeks, I'm about topped off and needing that deload. But, instead of taking a "deload week" as defined as the volume slash, blah, blah, blah, I instead went straight to the strength phase which was always modelled after westside. The difference being that the strength phase was lower volume (a lot lower in some cases), and the supplemental and accessory work was typically without a long eccentric which kept DOMS almost non-existant. So what I found was happening with my body was the volume phase certainly overreached me, then when I transitioned to my strength phases, it served the dual purpose, and deloaded me completely, all the while increasing my overall strength. So by the time I hit my next hypertrophy phase, I was stronger, fully deloaded, and more mentally fresh. I see IA talk about that a lot here.

Dual Factor Programming - I've always found it necessary in my training. 

First there's a lot of differences between "overreaching" and "overtraining", so don't lump them together. Oftentimes, the less experienced don't know when to stop, nor the difference between feeling "a little run down" vs. completely burnt out. 

There's 3 effects of training stress:

1) Fatigue
2) Overreaching
3) Overtraining

The first two will of course lead to a light reduction in your training capabilities which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The third one is when the lifter is too late. So, when you schedule random deloads far in advance without taking into account your recovery abilities, demands of the program, diet, sleep, stress, ect what you're doing is one of three things. One, you could just get lucky and guess right. Two, you deload well before adaption takes place from your training which makes everything you done up to that point pretty worthless. Three, by the time you deload on that magical week you slated in, it could be too late. If it IS too late (ie. overtraining vs. overreaching), then your deload would probably be more than one week OFF for sure (ie. you've officially fucked yourself). But remember, this applies more towards high intermediats and advanced lifters because novices can supercompensate faster thus never accumulating fatigue.

Back when I was a beginner, I always felt fully recovered by the next session. Practical Programming suggests beginners can supercompensate within 48-72 hours, which is on point with my experience. So a deload slated in, say, every 5 weeks just gives their joints and brains a break. When I started to gain more experience, I never felt the same rate of recovery. High intermediates and advanced lifters are ALWAYS going to have a small measure of fatigue from session to session. If you're just lifting to lift, and not working hard enough, then you're not going to accumulate enough fatigue for adaptation to occur. Sandblaster has stated on numerous occasions, rightfully so, that most people just don't work hard enough.

So we come full circle: Signs of overreaching

Overreaching is the cummulative effects from weeks of workouts, which totally depends on a lot of variables such as absolute load, volume, ect. "Typically, a short term decrease in performance, feelings of fatigue, depressed mood, pain, sleep disturbances, and other miscellaneous effects." - Practical Programming

Intermediate and advanced trainees have experience to know their bodies. It's certainly not rocket science I'm talking about here neither. My experience has always been a lack of motivation, feeling a bit of a body ache, and loss of sleep/appetitie.Slightly being the operative word. By far and away different from overtraining, when you're literally pushing so hard, so fast, and so long that you simply couldn't walk into the gym and register any type of measurable performance compared to weeks' past.

So what are the signs of overtraining? 

"Severely compromised performance, disrupted sleep, increased chronic pain, abnormal mood swings, abnormal heart rate, ect. - Practical Programming So now, for more experienced trainees, they would have deloaded WHEN NEEDED long before these final symptoms come about."

So what's worked best for me is to play it by ear, not setting in stone every 4 or 5 or 8 weeks. I understand that some days I'm just not there and I can live with that. If on that fourth week of your programming you're starting to feel run down, loss of motivation and appetite, trouble falling asleep, the weights feel heavier than usual, well guess what? Use your brain and run a deload week. Personally I prefer keeping everything heavy while dropping the volume down, but again, I don't PLAN it. What if during the deload week I feel a little sick on a training day? Guess what, take it off because you're deloading anyways. Deloading is about recovery anyways, not PR's lol. For DC training, if on week 5 I start to feel gassed on Wednesday, guess what? Even through it's not scheduled on some high speed spreadsheet, you bet your ass I'm going to take that Friday off, then pick back up on Monday. That' 4 days of rest right there, and can be the difference between a 6 week blast, or a 7 week one.

*Not*Surprisingly, there was a lot of people that loved this one more than the rest. Obviously, this applies to just about everyone with a life and responsibilities OUTside the gym. Families, demanding jobs, drug free, ect.

"The Working Class Hero"

This article is for the majority of us who work for a living. Those of us who aren't in high school anymore or burnouts living with their parents with all the time in the world to train. Who here spends long hours in the office? Take that number and superset that with a family! Lots of responsibilities that keep you home, and realistically, no matter how hardcore you think you are, you'll always choose your family over the gym. Even if that means grabbing a pair of bands and heading out to your garage, or doing pullups in the backyard holding onto a tree branch lol. A pump in the gym isn't going to make you feel any better sleeping on the couch! And if it does, you've got problems well beyond the scope of this article.

How many times have you heard:

..Not optimal
..Not popular
..Where's the (pick popular compound exercise)
..That's not what "So and so does"

While many times that's exactly what some trainees need to hear, there's a lot that people just don't take into account. So those words get replaced with "availability" and "what I can, when I can". 

Lets take powerlifting, por exemplo. While you can absolutely be a beast without any specialty bars or equipment, it does help. Using accomodating resistance as well as that infernal SSB bar helped my deadlifting tremendously! That said, aside from my gym at OCSC, I do not have access to that equipment. Now, I work upwards of 60 hours a week, so aside from Thursday's, I cannot make it in. It's as simple as that. Additionally, I was extremely tired and feeling run down with having to cut sleep short all the time to make it in the gym 4 days per week. I mean, it's imperative to go 4 days because everyone says so, right? Not necessarily. While I cannot brag about a 800 lb squat, I certainly can brag about making it well past 500 while working 60 hours a week, having a big family, and being drug free.. Same thing goes for most of you. There's a lot of impressive physiques here hands down(!), and I know a lot of you on a more personal level, and can certainly admire what a lot of you could accomplish while having so many demands outside of the gym. Being able to balance all your responsibilities like the food on your scales.

So what can you do about it? 

1) You need to make peace with your situation. Don't try to take on more than you can chew. If you cannot make it in 4 days per week for your upper/lower split, then don't try to because your mind will certainly not be focused on the weights in your hand. I know the times I've tried to go back to back days in the gym, all I could think about was if it was worth my getting up so early before work. No matter how subtle, it'll affect performance, and no amount of preworkout magic shakes is going to change that. Most people think more is better, and it's okay to throw volume at any problem you face, but it just isn't correct.

2) Be honest with yourself. Don't worry about the things you believe are "unchangable". If you want to workout three days per week, who the hell said it absolutely has to be every other day? If you can easily make it in Wednesday and the weekends, then by all means do so. Make things easy on yourself. Whether you know it or not, stress is one of the biggest reasons why most people aren't seeing the results they're after. I know I joke all the time with my friends that Lexapro has been the best bodybuilding supplement I've ever had LOL.

3) Make very attainable short term goals. Just worry about each little goal (battle), which will not only help win the War, but more importantly, it'll keep motivation, confidence in your abilities, and in what you're doing high as well. Having confidence in what you're doing is working is extremely important to be successful.

4) Do not be influenced by those around you! Straight from Beyond Brawn right here. If you're on a program like something out of Practical Programming where you're strictly doing bench, squat, and rows in a day, don't overanalyze and think you need some cable flyes to finish off that workout. Stay on task, and as long as the results keep coming, why change something? They may look like they're having fun on the hammer strength machines, and I guarantee you they'll STILL be looking like they're having fun 2 years from now on those machines looking the exact same.

5) Don't keep an online journal. What did he say?! Yep, believe it or not, it can hinder more than help. How many people's journals have any of you read where there's an excuse or ellaboration as to why the weight was low for that day? Or starting off the entry saying that you're a 350 lb bencher, but today they only benched 250.. Personally, I don't think it would be a motivational tool for someone to keep a journal when they're missing workouts because of a very hectic work schedule. Perceived expectations could weigh you down... 

In closing, I hope I was able to give all of you some food for thought. When it comes to training, you'll be hard pressed to find two people doing the same exact routine because everyone has needs, whether it's a weakness in strength or physique, or outside interference. I'll follow this article up with a few other routines that think outside the workman's box.

This is from Ironaddict. I don't remember where he posted the layout, but I thought it worth saving for anyone who suffers from a demanding job. This is a wonderful layout for anyone who sincerely wishes that there was more than 24 hours in a day.

Day One:
Bench or Dip
Incline Bench
Chin
Barbell Curl
Deadlift

As many rest days as needed

Day Two:
Bench or Dip
Incline DB Press
Row
Decline Skull Crushers
Squat

As many rest days as needed

Think about the possibilities here. There's just so much you could do here it's not even funny. Certainly none of this, or any program needs to be so "conventional" or vanilla either. Who the hell needs everything to be 3 x 10?!

This is just ONE of a thousand interpretations. You just have to think to yourself just how difficult this routine could potentially be depending on the intensification techniques you include. IA posted this routine somewhere quite a while ago. 

Day One:

Bench - Changes every week:
- Week One: 5 x 5
- Week Two: 5 x 4
- Week Three: 5 x 3
- Week Four: Rest back to 5 x 5 with increased weight
Incline Bench - 2 x 12 (1 second pause on chest)
Chins - 30-40 total reps (just get there!) - If you make it, either increase weight, decrease rest or sets to get there. (triple progressive method)
Barbell Curls - 20 rest paused
Deadlift - 1 x 4-6, rest 5 min, 1 x 8-12

Day Two:

Weighted Dips - 3 x 10 (pyramid to top set, heavy)
Incline DB Press - 20-30 rest paused
Chest Supported Rows - 3 x 10 (4 second negatives)
Decline Skull Crushers - 3 x 15 (60 second rest between sets)
Squat - 1 x 20 (using 12 RM)

Now, that will certainly get the job done. As you can see, there's A LOT of different things mixed in that you could get away with since it's really only "when you can". I tried to provide a lot of different ways of spicing up a routine. Any one of a number of different variations to the "same ol', same ol'" exercises would suffice. 

What if you could only get in *pick a day* and the weekends? Here's a thought:

Wednesday - Full Body
Saturday - Upper Body
Sunday - Lower Body

Or

Wednesday - Legs
Saturday - Chest/Back
Sunday - Shoulders/Arms/Abs

There's so many different things you could do, and get just as good or even better gains than if you tried fitting everything in to an already very busy schedule.

Advice to Doug

Drop the crunches. Crunches suck. Start in with prone planks instead. And do side planks. For flexion try ab pulldowns or janda situps if you can get someone to hold your legs or rig it somehow, saxon side bends (db overhead side bends), cable woodchops, russian twists. Not all on the same day, lol 

Bar rollouts or a regular ab roller would also be a good thing to do. 

Watch your shoulders. If it hurts so much it may be that you are holding the bar wrong during squats.

I would think about taking out the middle squat ("wednesday") and putting in a single leg variant of some kind. Maybe static split squats to start with. This will be of great benefit and allow some recovery, help train the hips and cut down the chance of injury. Also reduce some of the total stress to make it easier to handle the workload.

If you're doing the A-B-A format...I say don't. It's stupid to set it up so that the stress changes form week to week. Deadlifts are going to be the most draining. Deadlifting twice some weeks is just going to result in bad mojo. Just go A-B-C...

If I had my druthers, I'd want you to not even start the program right now but instead give yourself a honeymoon period with the lifts. The things a true beginner is going to get stronger pretty much no matter what. Just a few weeks of learning the movements, honing in the movement patterns, etc., will produce noticeable improvements in "strength". To say nothing of improvements in recruitment.

I would start out with what is called a "static split squat". So that is like being in the lunge position except you remain stationary..no lunge of any kind. That is still a very good exercise and allows you some time to work on balance, range of motion, etc..

Then from there there are options for progression. You can static and elevate the back leg a bit..working up to a "bulgarian split squat". Or you can go to reverse lunges then onto dynamic lunges. You don't have to do the same one the whole time. You can switch as you become more proficient and as you stop making progress. The good thing is that you can increase the difficulty without necessarily increasing the load. Step ups are also a great option for later on.

Heck, these changes are nothing. I would do something quite different if I were training a novice depending on the person.

BTW, it's important, I think, to think of the warmup stuff as MOBILITY rather than flexibility. There will be some flexibiltiy stuff in it but the emphasis in on movement and the range of motion of the joints.

I just added a video. If you start with that basic movement (that is good form, btw) you can go on to elevate the back leg, OR the front leg..or alternate it if you like. You can progressively elevate the back leg until you end up with what Wolf posted..a bulgarian. And then there are more dynamic movements like dynamic (forward lunges, reverse lunges (a bit easier at first), walking lunges..

You can change the way you load them. From dumbells to barbell on back to front grip barbell.

In the video, he's using a fairly long stride length which will be a little more hams and glutes (good). Closer stride length will increase quad contribution a bit more. He is pushing off the heel (good). Only go as long and low as you can control the weight, whether bodyweight or added weight. Don't let the load "pull" you down lower that that range of motion where you are in control. Add range of motion as you go and work on mobility separately as well.

As you see it's really the same exercise except with the back leg on the floor. That upright torso you see in the vid is crucial.

Well I meant an workout A then workout B then workout C instead of A then B then A then B. But you'd prob want to alternate the presses like Pity already said so it's not exacatly ABC. Or do pushups which can be progressed as well and are a very valuable alternative.

I would do...

A
Squat 
Press/Bench Press
Row/Chinup

B
Deadlift
Split Squat, etc..
Push ups (pushups can be progressed)
Light Face Pulls (optional)

C
Squat (or Front Squat)
Press/Bench Press (whichever isn't done on A)
Rows/Chinups (whichever isn't done on A)

Core stuff sprinkled in throughout the week. 

Assistance stuff to be added later on as needed.

On the press this is exactly why I advocated a honeymoon period with the lifts. As your are trying to get your form down and practicing getting under the weight you are also busy counting reps and sets. Sure it's lowish volume but the truth is you actually could have gotten better at doing them by, for instance doing only 2 or 3 reps at a time, if not less, resting, doing it again. Basically not letting a lot of fatigue creep in so you can really hone in the movement. A great option after practicing that way would be to take a much lighter weight and doing some slightly higher reps after you feel confident. To sort of grease in the movement. You do that a couple of times and you won't be saying things like "I'm having trouble getting under the bar" WHILE you're in the midst of a programming environment where you're trying to load the bar every workout. And to boot..you'd probably start the workout with heavier weights. Because you WILL get better this way. On the pullups you are good. It's normal for the reps to go down. If you want to take longer rest periods by all means go ahead and do so. You may get more reps per set that way and since the weight is being held constant, then right now pulling that weight MORE times is going to count for a lot. You could always progressively shorten the rest periods later on if you wanted to. When it comes to something that you are simply trying to get your reps up on, with the weight not changing then going to failure is a good way to go. You don't have to go to failure on every set but at least the last one. That's something that failure is good for, for the most part, increasing reps although it doesn't always have a big impact in terms of absolute strength and power. Just going to failure on the pullups won't be a problem for you. This is since you already are able to do a good bit. If you could only do one or so total pullups it would be a whole different ballgame but you are obviously already good at them. Good start on the training, Doug. Well I went into it a bit before. By no means am I saying take a break! I don't want to get into this long explanation of all this cuz i know you don't want to read all that right now but I'll try to put it in a different way and I will compare my view to the "starting strength" view so that it's clear what I'm saying, even if you choose not to take my advice. Lot's of time people like to use a concept but they refuse to take that concept to it's furthest extent. Because they are too busy making comprimises to "satisfiy" everyone. So here is the kind of thing Rip and others will say, but notice that they treat all these statements as isolated in a way. 1. When you're learning a lift, heavy and correct are mutually exclusive. So Rip says that. You need to 'start light', basically. 2 Beginners will get stonger at first pretty much right off the bat no matter what they do. This is a period in resistance training that is known as "general adaptation". Rip says this too. 3. You must use a weight that is heavy enought to require proper form while not being so heavy you can't do it properly. Rip and others say that also. 4. Such and such reps and sets are best for a beginner as they will cause the "fastest possilbe" strength gain while ensuring recovery between workouts. Rip says that. First notice that for any given individual there are some innate contradictions in all that. Heavy, and fatigued (even a bit fatigued) can equal to the same thing. In other words it is true that you can't learn a lift with a weight that is too heavy. But for many, using a weight that is "heavy enough" and then forcing them into a prescribed route of sets and reps is doing the SAME THING. To learn a lift you DO NOT emphasive volume PERIOD. You emphasize QUALITY. The more times you do it well, the faster you will get better at it. While you are learning the lift, if you chose the same weight but instead of emphasing 3x5, you did something like sets of 2, 3, 1, 1,2,3, 2, 2 or whatever felt right with the rest you need to maintain quality....your going to end up lifting that weight with more quality volume as opposed to just volume and you also may just be lifting that weight more times. Now the total workload may not be that different between what you did this time and what you would have done using my advice. BUT you could have concentrated more on getting under the bar. More rest would have facilitated more recovery therefore you could have practiced the lift MORE and still recovered. So on and so forth. Then when you have to start really counting the reps and sets and trying to load the bar every workout you at least feel like you have your form down. Although form is always something you have to work on and tweak. Is this making sense? I understand it goes again't many things that you've read. I know, I know that rip says learning these lifts is a ten minute thing, lol. Well, learning the verbal cues is a ten minute minute thing. Where all these people are who became bench and squat masters in ten minutes...I don't know . I'm STILL working on perfecting little things. So let me be clear. I am not talking about doing less. At least as much if not more. Just spreading out the reps more and allowing more rest in between. This will actually allow those beginning neural improvments to happen quicker.

Low Bar Squats vs. High Bar Squats

So, I did 315 lbs x 2 reps x 2 sets High Bar Squats. This bloke said something about them on another board:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiknskreem Have you considered switching to low bar squats? Looks like you've got a little bit of sitting back and hip drive going on, but its kind of a fruitless pursuit with the high bar. As well, looks like your wrists are pretty extended.... start with that thumb up on top of the bar, get those elbows up and back, get them wrists straight.

I asked the other members of the site and Eric what he thought...

ERIC:

I think most people don't know SQUAT about squat. The bar position is just the bar position. People have gotten SO damned confused with all the different powerlifting groups and their "styles". All this sitting back versus "something else" is SO beside the point. The basic squat technique doesn't change, wherever you place the bar. The torso incline changes, the mechanics change as a result, etc...but the technique, in it's fundamentals is the same. People change their squatting styles to get the most out of their gear but that is SO beside the point. You can do low bar squats sometimes, you can do high bar...you can do something in between. That will change the angles. How low you can go, etc. Different stance widths will play into that as well.

What you are doing at this point and time, for this program is fine. People just want you to do what THEY do. It makes them feel more sercure. LOL, I personally don't tell you to do everything I do because a lot of what I do wouldn't be appropriate for you (although that has nothing to do with low bar versus high bar).

Getting the hands all wide and the elbows back is not the way most people will want to squat.

You notice how when you are ascending you start to lose that thoracic extension and the shoulders come down with the thoracic rounding? Making it that much harder to keep that lower back straight? Well, you put the shoulders BACK that's going to get worse. Put the shoulders back more you shove the chest and head forward.

Now, it aint so bad to get that thoracic rounding a bit with the heavy stuff. That's one of the reasons we work on our T-Spine flexibilty and beef up our mid and upper backs. But you want to endevour to avoid it when you can.

People really need to stop thinking that everything that powerlifters do applies to everybody. That's a new trend that has become exceptable. Yet if you think everything that applies to PRO bodybuilders applies to you you'll have forum people setting you straight, lol. You're dong what Max Strenght calls for. Hey, tell them to e-mail EC with their recommendations. He loves to own people.

No doubt, of course, that now we will see some youtube videos posted.

Just to be clear I am not saying there is something evil about low bar squats. I DO low bar squats. As well as high bar. There is just no sense, however, in people running around telling everyone they need to "switch" to low bar. It's just silly.




There your three basic basic postions. They are kept at the same height for illustration purpose but you imagine that is the same guy doing all three. All that has changed is what has to happen to get the bar in the center of gravity or whatever. The line down the middle tells you everything.

Anything else is done ON PURPOSE. It is an intentional alteration and it has nothing to do with "correct" or "optimal" or any of that. At least as for as "strength" is concerned. As far as numbers...powerlifters do what they need to do to get the biggest numbers. I know there is a lot of "marketing" out there saying otherwise.

BTW, we mentioned EC..the guy is a record setting powerlifter. He straddles both worlds. As a "performance enhancement coach" which is sort of the new term of strength and conditioning coach, lol AND as a powerlifter. He doesn't have all his people doing low bar squats. WTF? You mean just because he's a powerlifter doesn't mean he has everybody become his clone?! How can that be. Fact is the guy hardly uses back squats at all.

Bottom line to me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anuj am I in the green or not?

You're ok. You're bring your shoulder blades together, etc...

Technically the heavy squat weight was a bit to high. Definitely get in those technique days.

Other than that...looking good.

VIDEOS:

Squat Set 1: 315 lbs x 2 reps

Squat Set 2: 315 lbs x 2 reps

Size vs. Strength

I came across an interesting read on EFS today.

http://www.elitefts.com/documents/size_strength.htm

Yeah, I'm not sure what he is saying exactly. I think maybe people need to be clear when they are speaking of themselves, lol, instead of making it sound like they have observed thousands of trainees to come to a conclusion.

Honestly I don’t really understand the logic of the central ideas in that article. Well, I understand what he is saying I just don’t understand WHY he is saying it. Sometimes I think people just want to get attention by saying the opposite of the generally excepted trend, lol, even if there is no real reason to be saying it.

If a person really only has size as their goal, and they ARE cabable of achieving that through primarily “hypertrophy” training, then good for them. I might think lot’s of size without that much increase in strength is silly but to each his own. For that person, I don’t understand why the point needs to be discussed about how they can get strong easy afterwards. You wanted to get big; you got big. Case closed. If your goals then change that is a different story. But to tell people, hey, get a bunch of jelly in your muscles without really increasing your max strength in proportion to that and then later you will find it easier to get strong….well, nice theory. I’ll believe it when he produces thousands of obvervations proving. But, in the end, what happens is what matters.

NOBODY likes the middle road. To me anytime someone presents any extreme viewpoint solidly in one end of the spectrum you can almost bet they are wrong. The answer to any goal tends to always be in the middle.

Bit I think so much has to do with mode of thought. We tend to "label" what we do as this or that and so that affects the outcome as much as anything else.

But here are is the BIGGEST problems with the argument in this article and in any article stating the opposite idea, and they are both related: All of these questions are dependent on the individual and their training state.

And problem two is a question of efficiency and, yes, genetics. The elite bodybuilder represents a VERY small proportion of the population. Just about everybody else falls under the "hardgainer" category to one degree or the other. Now, I hate the term hardgainer but the REASON I hate it is because people make seem like "hardgainers" are this very tiny group of ectomorphs. But really it's all relative. Most of us have bodies that will fight tooth and nail against building large amounts of energy expensive muscle. The body uses the path of least energy expenditure. So instead of the term hardgainer it would be more accurate, imho, to have the term "easygainers" for the very few lucky, and then "everybody else". Notwithstanding the fact that what works for the individual...WORKS. What matters is what happens, not my theories or ideas about what will happen

The question of what is more efficient is a little more complicated, though, to my mind. Assuming that someone, of course is working, more or less, in strength and hypertrophy range, or anerobic range, then every beginner who picks up a weight will have some period, longer or shorter, of "free strength". Some methods will develop max strength faster than others but at first just about anything is going to get some initial strength gains.

Why are 5x5 methods so popular? Because they are a perfect middleground for develping strenght AND mass for the person who is just past the novice stage...i.e. just past this period of "free strength". Doesn't matter really if it was "hypertrophy training" or "strength training" the middleground approach represents just the sort of change that will usually meet with a lot of growth AND strength for a while.

But here is where efficiency comes in. The idea that someone who has gained a whole bunch of apparent size from high volume high rep (presumable bodypart) training can just "switch" all that mass over to "strength" is ummm...a little misleading. Matter of fact it's almost simplified to the point of nonsense. If the adapatation NEEDED was a whole bunch of max strength it already would have happend, logically. Why didn't it happen? Because nervous system changes and FUNCTIONAL muscle tissue wasn't the only adpaptation needed to the type or training undergone. It all comes down to specific adaptations to imposed demands. You can't turn fat into muscle and you can't turn sarcoplasmic jelly (stored substrates) into strong contracting muscle. To some extent the body has to "readapt". Hell, that's one of the big problems with western periodization. One "skill" or adapation is being detrained or lost while the other is being trained. That's enough right there to put the serious cabash on that whole article.

But large amounts of non-functional "mass" retards strength ability and strength gain. People that really are interested in strength are wanting relative strength. To say that a whole bunch of hypertrophy for hypertrophy’s sake is somehow advantageous to gaining strength down the road…well let me just say that the 250 pound bodybuilder who starts training for strength is going to get his ass handed to him by others in his weight range who have been training for strength all along and until his relative strength is better, he really won’t be “strong” compared to people who are “really strong”. Which could VERY WELL mean a signicant decrease in body weight.

On the other hand, muscular strength will never retard your ability to hypertrophy if that becomes your primary goal. But I agree with you, Andrew, that giving arbitrary numbers as the strength gain before “mass” is probably a little much. When I really started primarily focusing on strength training I got smaller looking. I felt more dense, and I actually liked the way I looked better. But I think it comes down to more efficiency. And of course all rep ranges are always being used by me. But if I start getting the size bug whispering in the back of my head, I have to, quite frankly, do at least a little, ‘bodybuilding style’ training.

Mel Siff expains all this better, of course:

OPTIMUM, NOT MAXIMUM, HYPERTROPHY

In both Olympic lifting and powerlifting, optimal and not maximal
hypertrophy is a central feature of the game, unlike bodybuilding where it
does not matter whether one is relatively weak or strong with reference to
one's bodymass. All that matters is well-defined, symmetrical muscle bulk
in bodybuilding, but in the lifting sports, your size and impressiveness of
appearance earn you scant respect - all that counts is what you lift.

Optimal hypertrophy means continuing to develop building muscle only as
long as that extra bulk continues to provide you with significant increases
in strength and power. If you add 10kg to your bodymass and your total
increases by only 5kg in a higher bodymass division, then your relative
strength has decreased and that added hypertrophy is wasted on you.

This is a serious problem in contact sports such as football where the
common belief is that virtually any form of added mass is good for the game
(especially defensive players), whereas in reality it would be a lot better
if the added bulk was mainly solid, functional muscle which added strength,
power, speed and agility.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF HYPERTROPHY

Research from Russia even suggests that there are two different types of
muscle hypertrophy: sarcomere hypertrophy (of the actual contractile
components) and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (of non-contractile proteins and
semifluid plasma between the muscle fibres), with the latter type of
hypertrophy being more in evidence in bodybuilding (Siff & Verkhoshansky
"Supertraining" 1998 Ch 1.12).

MUSCLE GROWTH & PERFORMANCE

To provide some more relevant information on this important and
controversial topic, I have included this fairly lengthy extract from
"Supertraining" (pp 58-60) for those who may be interested:

Other research has found that hypertrophied muscle fibres need a
significantly larger tissue volume to perform a given amount of work. With
the development of non-functional muscle bulk (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy),
the increase in muscle mass outsrtips the development of the circulatory
system, resulting in decreased nutrition and oxygenation of the muscle,
slowing down the metabolic processes in the muscle and less efficient
disposal of metabolic waste products from the musculoskeletal system
(Zalessky & Burkhanov Legkaya Atletika 1981: 1-7).

Furthermore, adaptation occurs more slowly in connective tissue (such as
tendons and ligaments) than in muscle and any increased tension made
possible in the musculotendinous complexes by the increased muscle mass can
cause damage to these structures (Zalessky & Burkhanov, 1981). Thus,
excessive hypertrophy usually leads to slower muscle recovery after
exercise, deterioration in speed, speed-strength and speed, as well as an
increased incidence of injury.

THE ENERGY COSTS OF TOO MUCH HYPERTROPHY

This might suggest that all muscle fibre hypertrophy lowers work capacity.
Hypertrophy is an adaptive response to physical stress and does offer the
benefit of increased mitochondrial surface area, which provides for more
efficient energy processes than would an increased number of mitochondria.
With a rapid increase in loading, the size of the mitochondria continues to
increase markedly, but their number decreases and the concentration of ATP
drops, thereby diminishing the partial volume of the contractile myofibrils.

The resulting energy deficit soon inhibits the formation of new structures
and the decreased amount of ATP stimulates various destructive processes
associated with decrease in the number of myofibrils. This process is
referred to as irrational adaptation.

Growth of any living structure is related to the balance between its volume
and its surface area. When muscle hypertrophy occurs, the surface of the
fibres grows more slowly than their volume and, this imbalance causes the
fibres to disintegrate and restructure in a way which preserves their
original metabolic state (Nikituk & Samoilov, 1990).

It would appear that light and medium increases in loading require less
energy, facilitate cell repair, minimise the occurrence of destructive
processes and stimulate the synthesis of new, non-hypertrophied cellular
structures. Medium loads applied with a medium rate of increase in loading
produce intense muscular development, the process in this case being
referred to as rational adaptation..

The fact that conventional isometric training improves performance in
static, rather than dynamic, exercise may be due to the different
structural effects of isometric training on the muscle fibres, muscle
cells, connective tissues and blood capillaries.

MORE ON OPTIMAL HYPERTROPHY

This work seems to corroborate the hypothesis referred to earlier that
there may be an optimum size for muscle fibres undergoing hypertrophy
(MacDougall et al, 1982; Tesch & Larsson, 1982). The importance of
prescribing resistance training regimes which produce the optimal balance
between hypertrophy and specific strength then becomes obvious. Thus, it
is not only prolonged cardiovascular training which can be detrimental to
the acquisition of strength, but multiple fairly high repetition sets of
heavy bodybuilding or circuit training routines to the point of failure may
also inhibit the formation of contractile muscle fibres.

Therefore, it is vital to monitor regularly changes in muscular structure
and function alongside changes in size and mass. In most cases the taking
of biopsies is not possible or financially practical, so that indirect
assessment of the adaptive processes is necessary. Increase in hypertrophy
of a given muscle zone may be assessed from muscle girth and skinfold
thicknesses at that site, while factors such as relative strength, maximal
strength and the strength deficit (see Ch 1) serve as useful indicators of
functional efficiency.

INDISCRIMINATE WEIGHT TRAINING

Bosco (1982a) cautions against the indiscriminate use of resistance
training that typifies much of the 'cross training' prescribed with weights
and circuits by Western personal trainers and coaches. He emphasizes that,
although heavy resistance training serves as a powerful stimulus for the
development and hypertrophy of both ST and FT fibres, the invaluable role
played by FT development can be impaired by the accompanying growth of ST
fibres, because the latter appear to provoke a damping effect on FT
contraction during fast movement.

This is due to the fact that, during high speed shortening of muscle, the
sliding velocity of ST fibres can be too slow and therefore, may exert a
significant damping effect on the overall muscle contraction. He concludes
that the central role played by the storage and release of elastic energy
by the connective tissues of the muscle complex should never be ignored in
sport specific training programmes.

Dr. Mel Siff

Sorry this post is super long. I wanted to just get it across and not have to come back and post on it a bunch more. BTW, I want to point out that when he talks about cardio and super high rep circuits and such as being detrimental he uses the word PROLONGED. He is not saying there is not advantage to it.

This all reminded me of another thread:

http://www.bodybuilding.net/training...pump-9642.html

I thought that some non math-oriented individuals (like myself) may be confused by this statement by Siff:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS If you add 10kg to your bodymass and your total increases by only 5kg in a higher bodymass division, then your relative strength has decreased and that added hypertrophy is wasted on you.

What he is talking about is strength-to-weight ratio. There is also power-to weight ratio but he mentions a 1RM so we'll stick to a simple strength formula. You strength-to-weight ratio is simply your 1RM (for a given movement) divided by your body mass.

So, if you weigh 200 pounds and you have a 1RM of 220 lbs (good for you) then your relative strength is 1.1. THEN, if you increase your body weight by 15 pounds but your 1RM increases by 5 lbs...your relative strength goes down to 1. Doesn't seem that bad but if that represents a TREND, then you can see that all that a bunch of that body weight ain't doing nothin for you in terms of strength.

Squat Flexibility and Hitting Depth

One thing you may not recognize is that just because you aren't stable at a certain depth with a heavy weight doesn't mean you may not be able to get more depth with a ligther weight. So remember Cressey's suggestions for "technique" days as well and that is a place you can work on depth and such too...

That way you are also practicing mobility with some load that you have to stabilize.

Kind of like I do now on overhead squats.

I actually have too different "progressions". OH squats are in regular rotation now and that is when I am concerned with lifting as heavy as I can. On those sessions with the heavier weight my depth is a little less.

But then I have regular practice with OH squats with a lighter weight and greater depth. In fact, now with the lighter weights I can do a full "olympic style" squat with OH....pretty much with the lower back perfect. Plus with the lighter weigth I have enough control to really work on keeping that lower back set and achieving full extension. SO, with these squats I am also slowly upping the weights. This I can do a good three times a week without taking anything out of me really...only benefits....but I don't have to do it that often.

Like I've said before..the weight always matters. That is why you would have things like technique days with lighter weights. I.E. enough weight to require proper form but not so much that you can't really hone in the technique.

E

Mobility: Flexibility and Stability

Hey, hope you had a good time.

I'll be happy to explain it further to you, but first of all let me say that no, there is nothing wrong with what you are doing now.

One thing to read is a fairly recent article by Mike Robertson called, I think "the mobility/stability continuum", or something to that effect. He kind of addresses some of the confusion that has come about recently but of course Mike Boyle, Eric Cressey, Hartman, Gray Cook....are great sources of info on this short of a kineseology and kinematics textbook

Anyway there is always a tradeoff between mobility and stability. I guess I should try to make clear in your mind what those two things really are in simple terms.

For mobility lets ASSUME that flexibility goes into that, even though flexibilty and mobility are NOT the same exact thing. Flexibiltiy is the ability of a muscle to change lengths. Stretch, basically. MOBILITY is simply movement, or the abiltiy of a joint to move. There are more factors other than JUST flexibility that effects this, right? Like a joint can just be restricted and tight on it's on. And there is even more to it than that, from a kinematic standpoint.

Stabibility should be self explanatory (I know you know all this stuff but...) let's simply say that it is the abiltiy to maintain a fixed postion in space...a STABLE position.

So, think about this. Why is it someone can go low a back or front squat and be sable throughout the entire range of motion but make them hold something overhead and they can no longer do that? How much of that is flexibility, for instance, of the thoracic region and the shoulders, etc...and how much is stability...the core muscular, the hips, the lower back...everything required to hold that position with the weigths overhead?

Remember when Andrew told you the OH squat thing had nothing to do with weight and I got annoyed by that? Well, that is because of mobility versus stability. You may have the mobility and stability to take a five pound wooden rod and overhead squat it but a 45 pound bar requires more stability. It doesn't matter how flexible you are if it's too heavy to stabilize. Of COURSE the weight has something to do with it. It ALWAYS does.

OK, so to get into a new position requires both new mobility and new stability. Right? But why is it easier to gain the mobility FIRST and then add the stability? Becasue if an area you require flexiblity and mobility in is too tight, than another area that is supposed to be stabilizing has to give in order to achieve the range of motion.

That might be confusing even though it's in very simplified terms (we both know it's more complicated) so let me give an example of what I mean. I explained this in someones journal not to long ago.

Say you are trying to do hip extensions. You know, "hyperextensions" which I call hip extensions. Say your hamstrings are tight and you lack range of motion in you hips. But you are trying to keep the lower back set and the upper body fully extended, right? So what happens when you reach the end of that limited range of motion in the hips but you want to go lower? The lower back has to flex, right? The lumbar muscles have to stretch to allow any more range of motion. So if you KEEP on doing that trying to go lower WHILE maintaining a nicely set lower back it is going to be a battle between the mobility you want and the stability you want. Is this making sense?

If you go into is already with the hip mobility you need, then the lower back doesn't have to take over for the range of motion thus allowing it to stabilize and build static endurance. It's like this with anything. So simply speaking, if you can achieve a degree of mobility while allowing for external stability (something propping you up, etc...) it will be much easier to then allow the stabilizing muscles to do their job once a load is added. And even a little load changes everything when it comes to stability, right? Because your center of gravity changes.

Does any of this help explain it?