Wondering where this myth came from.

[Life4ever]

I was talking to a lot of lifters, and they believe when your muscles get larger, you need to rest them more? I dont see how your muscles being larger has anything to do with your frequency in the gym...thanks.

[chris mason]

Life, if you don't see it, what is your opinion? Please explain why you don't believe it because it will help me to answer you.

[Go Stars]

Chris,

Did you just use the, "Help me help you"?

[j_dubs]

Technically, you shouldn't have to rest any more as you get bigger. However, as you get stronger you're using more weight and possibly higher intensity workouts, which would require more rest. Also, as you use heavier weights, your muscles may not require more rest, but your joints probably do. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just make sure your muscles get at least 48 hours to recover. Hope this answers your question.

[chris mason]

J_dubs, what do you mean "technically" you shouldn't need any more rest, and what do you base your answer on?

[chris mason]

Originally posted by Go Stars
Chris,

Did you just use the, "Help me help you"?



One problem with written communication is that your reader may not understand your answer. I want to get an idea of what he/she thinks about the subject so that I can answer in terms that will make sense. I often get accused of being too technical.

[chris mason]

The reason bigger muscles on a particular individual require more recovery time is because bigger muscles are, well... bigger. When you train with weights, your muscles are damaged. Your body must repair them and then try to make them bigger (if you trained properly). Your body's ability to repair the muscles etc. does not increase proportionately with muscle size. So, as your muscles get bigger, and there is more repair work to be done, your body needs more time to do it.

[j_dubs]

Chris- where are you getting your info???

[chris mason]

Thanks for deflecting the question! Unlike you, I will answer the question. My info comes from many sources including studies that were done as far back as World War II (this study showed that intensity and not duration is the most important factor in muscular growth). I read a lot of what Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden have to say. I know from personal experience. I know from websites like
http://home.hia.no/~stephens/exphys.htm. So now, please answer my question fully. WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR ANSWER ON? Oh yeah, one last thing, I have a little knowledge of physiology and the ability to think logically (works usually, not always).

[j_dubs]

So sorry Mr. Big Shot. I didn't answer your question right away because I wanted to know if you had any substantial info before I disagreed with your answer. BTW I have a "little" knowledge of physiology too, having completed 3 1/2 years of an Exercise PHYSIOLOGY degree program. I also discussed this topic with my friend that I work with that has an Exercise Phys. degree also. Just so you know, I also looked through 2 Exercise Phys. text books, the ACSM book on Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, a personal training manual by the American Council on Exercise, and an exercise standards and guidelines book before deciding to disagree with you (because I usually agree with the advice and info you give). I found no info that states that as a muscle grows, it needs more time to recover. However, I did find some that goes along with what I said earlier: "As we become stronger, we typically perform more demanding workouts. However, more stressful training sessions may require longer recovery periods for tissue-building to be completed. Consequently, it is often helpful to reduce the training frequency." (Personal Trainer Manual written by The American Council on Exercise pp.248-249)

Now, to think about this "logically", if you're statement is true, then Ronnie Coleman should take about 5 times as long to recover due to his overall muscle size. Why then, is he on a similar program to that of many novices? Secondly, training enhances recovery time.

[Edited by j_dubs on 01-31-2001 at 05:20 PM]

[Life4ever]

I brought this topic up for a good debate....I like whats going on....If a muscle is bigger, what does the actual frequency have to do with it? Like j puds said, If you are ronnnie colemans size, would you work your chest once every 10-12 days, since its so big ?

[j_dubs]

Life 4 ever- you were right in your assumption that this is a myth. As muscle size increases, so does the number of capillaries at the muscle site, which increases blood flow, which increases recovery. Just like your muscles adjust to the stress of the weight, they also adjust in order to recuperate.

[chris mason]

The reason Ronnie Coleman doesn't take longer to recover is because he takes steroids! No other reason. Bad argument.

You are dead wrong about the muscles adapting to be able to recuperate to the same level that your strength increases. Yes, you do increase numbers of capillaries, but that does not mean that a bigger muscle can recover as quickly as a smaller muscle. Muscle recovery is a complex process which doesn't occur only locally. If your theory were accurate, a trainee could keep adding volume indefinitely and recover from it because the body will just "keep adapting". Training does enhance recovery ability, but not to the same degree as muscle strength. The average male can increase his strength 300% from training, the increase he can realize in recovery ability is not anywhere near that. I'll tell you what, you do 20 sets per bodypart and I'll do 2 and we will see who gets bigger and stronger (assuming no steroid use).

[chris mason]

[QUOTE: "As we become stronger, we typically perform more demanding workouts. However, more stressful training sessions may require longer recovery periods for tissue-building to be completed. Consequently, it is often helpful to reduce the training frequency." (Personal Trainer Manual written by The American Council on Exercise pp.248-249)

[/QUOTE]



By the way, your own response agreed with what I said! What do you think makes these sessions more "stressful"? It is not more stressful because you are training with increased intensity, failure is failure whether you can lift 100 or 300 lbs. Many beginners train with just as many sets as advanced trainers, so it's not the duration of the workout. It's more stressful because the larger muscles require more energy to contract. Kind of like a big engine needs more gas to function. If you squat 10 times with 400 lbs you have burned a lot more energy than when you were only able to squat 200 lbs for 10 reps. One more thing, a lot of the exercise physiology you will learn in school is not accurate. Not in terms of chemistry or anatomy, but in terms of theories that scientists have come up with. A lot of people come to inaccurate conclusions about a study because the study was performed poorly and didn't consider all of the variables. You should go to cyberpump.com (in the training section) and read "My First 50 Years in the Iron Game" by Arthur Jones. You would learn an awful lot of practical bodybuilding information.

[Frankster]

Chris,

I think you are very intelligent when it comes to bodybuilding info, i would like to be that knowlegeble one day. I have been studying bodybuilding ( through books, mags, and personnal experience ) for 3 years and a half now, and i consider myself pretty knowlegeble in this field also. One thing i did remark while studying like this is that you have to take some and leave some. Opinion on this subject vary greatly from 'expert' to 'expert' aand you have to decide what works for you. Everybody is different and we should all find what works for us.
Thats why you will never hear me say things like it just came frome a book and i just typed it here. Simply because i dont believe in saying ' this is the way it should be done, and what youre saying is wrong!'.
I dont want you to take this the wrong way, cause like i said i respect you and think youre very educated on the subject, but would it be to innapropriate to ask for youre age? And also with all that information, if you applied it to your own training, which i suppose you must have because you have such an fixed oppinion on a lot of things, you must be or must have been at one point in great shape.
-Could we see pictures?

[gino]

Regardless of Ronnie's drug use, he does have pretty good genetics...AND the amount he eats is much more than us This means that he's getting more nutrients.

[The Old Man]

Correct me if I am wrong but is Ronnie Coleman not a police officer in Texas? If so his use of steroids would be breaking the law. Here they are subject to random drug testing and is so would steroid use show up?

[chris mason]

Random drug testing would only detect anabolics if the test is designed to look for them. I do not know of any tests outside of the sporting arena that tests for them. Even if you are tested for them, it is not very hard to beat most of the tests.

Frankster, you are correct that some people can train with higher sets and still make gains. That is not to say that they wouldn't make better gains with fewer sets. However, for a particular trainee, the bigger you get the greater the recuperation needed unless you take tissue building drugs. Period. I have only one picture from my competitive days and that is from when I was 19. I didn't take very many and have lost the others throughout my life. I think it was one of those things that I figured I'll wait until I'm 250 lbs ripped to take a lot of pictures. I am in the process of trimming some excess fat right now. I will post pictures within the next couple of months. I am 30 years old to answer your other question. I have 3 kids, a wife, and I work 50 plus hours per week if that will help you to judge my maturity level. I may not look what I consider to be spectacular, but I can lift a pretty fair amount of weight. I can curl 185 lbs for 8 reps with loose form, french press 225 x 2 with good form, row on a Hammer Strength machine (seated upright) with 470 lbs worth of plates for 6 reps, super slow squat-- 5 seconds down and 10 seconds up with 345 lbs for 3 reps (bad knees are the reason for super slow)-- by the way, try this and you will find it is a lot of weight. I weighed 237 lbs at 5' 11" when I started this diet and I was not a slob by any means. I would venture to guess that I am bigger and stronger than most of the people on this board and I don't take steroids. I took steroids in my early 20s for a total of about 3-3.5 months (one cycle of deca by itself and one with .5 tablet of anadrol a day for 52 days when dieting for a show). I regret that decision greatly and have not been anywhere near them for 7 years. I will never take them again. Ever! When I did partake I still trained how I tell all of you to and I was 250 lbs at a low bodyfat and a lot stronger than I am now. My personal goal is to be 220 lbs at a low bodyfat percentage and be as strong as I possibly can. Hope this answers your questions.

[j_dubs]

Chris- I picked that quote to show WHY people sometimes need to increase rest time as they get stronger. In no way does it imply that because the muscle is bigger, it needs more time to recover. As you become stronger, you become more experienced. With experience, comes intensity. With more intensity, you need more rest. I've had yet to see a beginner lift with the same intensity as a trained veteran. Also, after lifting for a while, gains stop or slow drastically. This is what usually causes someone to increase the intensity of their workouts and their rest time. Again, I respect your opinion and usually agree with the info that you give, so I searched for about an hour on this topic and couldn't find anything that implied that muscle recovery slows when the muscle becomes bigger. Also, the point you tried to make about doing 20 sets for a muscle doesn't hold water. Of course your muscle will need a LONG time to recover from a workout like that. Anybodies will! But that has nothing to do with the size of the muscle. I'm sticking with my opinion.

[j_dubs]

I just thought of something else: If your THEORY were true, your quads (very big muscles) would take a lot longer to recover than your biceps (a relatively small muscle), right???

[chris mason]

J_dubs, I can respect your opinion for the fact that it is your opinion. However, I will 100% guarantee you that you are incorrect. If you wish to research this further I suggest two sites: 1)cyberpump.com 2)classicx.com . Your opinion will allow you to grow only to the point that your muscular size and strength will outstrip your ability to recover (unless of course you dabble in steroids). Think of it this way, why do you think that millions upon millions of trainees go to the gym every day with little or nothing to show for their efforts? They train hard and long and get nothing past those initial gains that everyone makes. It's not genetics, it's poor training philosophy. What do you define as intensity? I define intensity as the percentage used of one's momentary ability. In other words, if you can bench 250 lbs for three reps and stop at two, you have trained with 66% intensity. If you do the third rep and try a fourth one then you have used 100% intensity. So, I'm not sure by what you mean when you say that seasoned trainees use higher intensity, you either go to failure or not. Some seasoned trainees might grimace more, or grunt louder, but that doesn't mean they are training with a higher intensity. Now, neurologically speaking, an experienced trainee has a better adapted nervous system and therefore is able to activate the muscles more fully, but this adaptation occurs very quickly in training and probably takes no more than a month of training. Like I said, your theory makes no logical sense. If recovery ability stays completely proportional with muscle size and strength there would be no blips on the bodybuilding road. You would never have to vary your training frequency and there would be no scientific basis for stagnation in your training. If you can always recover fully from a workout, regardless of your size, in the same amount of time, you would progress at exactly the same pace (barring illness or injury) until your muscle cells reached their genetic plateau. That doesn't happen, so there must be a component of your body's ability to repair itself and overcompensate that does not keep up with muscle size and strength. Think about it, and check out those sites, and let me know what you think.

[Edited by chris mason on 02-02-2001 at 11:21 AM]

[UFO]

When you can train with more intensity you tax your nervouse system a lot harder too. Your nervous system can need a lot more recovery time than your muscles.

[Life4ever]

From your post, it seems to be you like failure training?? Why is that, doing that all the time can and will cause system burnouts, which will actaully make you overtrain.

[chris mason]

That system burnout thing is pure bullsh-t! But, you have hit on a good point. The reason people think that high intensity exercise can cause overtraining is because the DO NOT ALLOW SUFFICIENT RECOVERY TIME AS THEY GET BIGGER AND STRONGER. See how this all ties together.

Now, J_dubs, my theory does not necessarily imply that larger muscle groups (i.e. thighs) take greater recovery time than others, although they generally do! My theory stated that as your individual muscles (any of them) get bigger and stronger they will require more and more recovery time and or less training volume. Depending on your genetics some muscles or groups of muscles may heal faster than others. All of these muscles will still need more time, relatively, to recover as you get bigger and stronger.

[Life4ever]

Originally posted by chris mason
That system burnout thing is pure bullsh-t! But, you have hit on a good point. The reason people think that high intensity exercise can cause overtraining is because the DO NOT ALLOW SUFFICIENT RECOVERY TIME AS THEY GET BIGGER AND STRONGER. See how this all ties together.

Now, J_dubs, my theory does not necessarily imply that larger muscle groups (i.e. thighs) take greater recovery time than others, although they generally do! My theory stated that as your individual muscles (any of them) get bigger and stronger they will require more and more recovery time and or less training volume. Depending on your genetics some muscles or groups of muscles may heal faster than others. All of these muscles will still need more time, relatively, to recover as you get bigger and stronger.


I dont know if its bull**** or not..but I KNOW that if you train til failure every workout session, that will make you OVERTRAIN.

[Cackerot69]

"I KNOW that if you train til failure every workout session, that will make you OVERTRAIN."

your wrong. i've trained to failure non stop for a little over a year, i never overtrained. i'm sure chris can explain this in great detail, i can just tell you from personal experience, your wrong.

[Life4ever]

lmao cackerot, from you experience, (**be nice**)......you probably dont even know how train to failure...you wonder why arent growing cackerot.....no offense to you or anything...you just got the wrong idea of training if you think training til failure on your exercises is the way to go.

[Edited by gino on 02-02-2001 at 04:56 PM]

[gino]

Training to failure is the way to go for me. Do you doubt that? If so, why?

[Avatar]

I gotta agree with cack. I also train to failure on every set and have been going up in weight and have been gaining some nice mass for months now. Nothing wrong with going to failure on every set.

[chris mason]

Life, in your past posts you have proven to be misguided. I have tried not to get difficult and I have tried to answer your post in the best way I know how. There are tons and tons of people that train to failure every workout and don't overtrain, so don't say that you "know" anything. If you have tried it and overtrained, it is because you did too many sets and did not allow enough rest. I train to failure in every workout and have done so for years. I guarantee that I have made better gains than you. I guarantee that I can lift more than you and have bigger muscles. I also have trained clean for 12 3/4 of the 13 years of training under my belt. So, workout any way you want and if you think that you know all of the answers don't ask for help or explanations in your posts. Whenever the advice given doesn't agree with what you think you argue with it. So if you don't want varying opinions don't ask at all. I'm sure you are thinking that I am guilty of being a "know it all" as well. I am, but the difference between us is that I don't ASK for other's opinions. So, if you know it all, don't ask any questions.

[Life4ever]

"I guarantee that I have made better gains than you. I guarantee that I can lift more than you and have bigger muscles. I also have trained clean for 12 3/4 of the 13 years of training under my belt."

Who cares what gains you have made and didn't? what does that have to do with anything? because your such a beast, you know everything then??? because your so much bigger than me, failure training is the best way to go?jezzz...I never asked for opinons for anything, I tried to get a discussion set up about larger muscles being worked.....Me the know it all?? your the one who always argues with everyone bro, not me...I throw my opinon in..you sit there and type all this **** out why your right EVERYTIME, likr you THINK you are...

Gino: Excessive failure training will lead to a nervous system burnout...you cant push your body that hard every session...you would overtrain your system, just to much stress on your overall BODY,you would over trian you system WAY WAY before you would overtrain an actually muscle group...this is my last post on this thread... Most people dont actually train til failure.....they just quit when it gets hard, I know you dont do that though gino, but A LOT Of others do.

[Anthony]

Maybe if you trained to failure 7 days a week for 2 hours a day and ate MacDonald's and got 5 hours of sleep ... maybe then you would over train.

Over training is a combination of lack of rest and lack of nutrition. It's almost impossible to over train unless you are an idiot.

[chris mason]

My size etc. has a lot to do with it because when I was 17 and first started training I weighed about 165lbs at 5'11". So, obviously my methods work. I am willing to bet your methods have gotten you to about 170-180 lbs. Am I right? If I am, it might be a good idea for you to try something new. Let me tell you something else, I AM right most of the time! There are very few natural trainees with similar bodytypes to mine who are bigger or stronger than me. I don't consider myself to be a genetic marvel, so it must be something else....hmmmm...wonder what? I really doubt that I have much better genetics than you, so why am I bigger? No not drugs. Yes, it's my training methods. I did admit to being a "know it all" if you had read my post. I merely noted that the difference between the two of us is that I don't ask for advice or look to open "dicussions". So which is it, do you know what you are talking about and do you have confidence in it or not?
If know it's the latter. So, don't tell anyone on this site, and secretly try the methods I espouse and you will probably make the best gains of your life!

[chris mason]

You know, there is something else you and some others don't seem to get about me. I only argue about things I am positive of, and when I am wrong I ADMIT it like a man. I don't argue about petty things like what exercises to use etc. If I see something I disagree with, you can be damn sure I will say something! I don't do it because I want to be a big shot, I do it because I hate to see ignorant people train and eat in a stupid and nonproductive fashion. Yes, I want to help people, but the only way to get through some people's thick skulls is to be blunt about it. A lot of people are so brain washed that they want to lash out at you when you lay the truth before their eyes. Human nature is opposed to change.

[Behemouth]

life4ever. if you were training to be a runner would you run to the end of your diveway and back. if you don't train your muscles to failure they won't grow back much bigger or stronger because you didn't work them enough.

[Life4ever]

Chris- I liked your response man...I really did, but I am bigger than 170-180 now LOL...you talk about your genetics not being so great, you dont know tha til you actually lift the weights. What I mean is...you can have a skinny kid, and all of a sudden, he blows up since he starts training..or you have a skinny kid who just wont put muscle on him. Genetics play to good a role man...I know a lot of people who dont do **** but lift, there diet sucks, but they get bigger still because of there genes...me, I have to constantly eat 6 meals, ect, ect....

sorry bro, that was a bad example....about the running to the driveway.

[Ronan]

LOL great post guys

I train to and past failure every workout, I make sure all other factors are in place first ie food and sleep

I have grown quite a bit over the last 2 years

[Maki Riddington]

I touched on this breifly in a MM.com thread.

Training to failure is not a prerequisite to muscle growth.
Charles Staley puts it like this....."training to failure is like rying to run a marathon race full sprint,sooner or later your going to get tiered".

What are you guys talking about when you talk about training to failure?
Is it concentric,eccentric,neural,ability to maintain good form,adhering to tempo, keeping proper ROM etc......


Obviously we are gearing this around training for hypertrophy,you train to progress,you don't always need to train to failure to progress most people can train without failing and still progress,the goal is to progress slowly so you allow the body to adapt better and recuperate faster.
You are only limited to how far you can prgress with the intensity of you lifts(see Chris's definition)
If you train to failure you can be setting yourself up for injury,just think about the muscle when it reaches "failure" something has to give.
Usally the stabilizers give out first then the prime movers so that means your form starts to detiriorate(spelled incorrectly)and you know where that can lead to.

Training to failure is a tool that should be used just like any other exercise variable.It's not a bad thing but should be varied just like you do reps sets etc.......
Some people have been blessed with good genes,so they can afford to use this tool more often than others.

[chris mason]

Mac, will all due respect to you, I think Charles Staley is completely wrong. Periodization is just a current fad in training espoused by "experts" because it fits somewhat into the accepted creed of bofybuilding. It allows one to train more often with more sets. It is not the most efficient way to progress, in my opinion. The greater the intensity (as I define it), the greater the stimulation and the greater the gains if your body is allowed to recover. There is a threshold for each individual (be it 75%, 80% etc.) in intensity that will stimulate growth, but how do we determine that threshold? Once we have determined it (if we can), then how do we know what rep to stop at? Let's say, for example, that a trainee found out his threshold for growth is 90% intensity. That means if he can lift 100 lbs for 10 reps he can stop at 9 and still stimulate growth. Now, he stops at 9 in his first workout, but where should he stop in his next workout? Did he stimulate enough growth for him to do 11 or 12 reps, or maybe even 13? Do you see? For him to hit that 90% figure he must always know exactly how strong he is, but he cannot know that until he trains. The only way to assure yourself growth is to train to failure (100% intensity) because it requires no previous knowledge. You just go until you cannot perform another rep and then you have assured yourself growth stimulation. Think about that.

[Cackerot69]

FYI, i'm not wondering why i'm not growing...i'm actually growing very fast. i'm up almost 40lbs in 8 months.

when i say failure, i mean concentric failure.

[Maki Riddington]

Thats fine your allowed to think that,your entitled to your own opinion.
Periodization is a plan.A fad,I don't know about that,a carefully layed out planned program will reap great results A periodized program will follow the SAID,GAS,Specificity,USE/Disuse,Overcompensation,Law of Individulaized Differences principles(this is quoted by Fred Hatfeild)
A good book or should I say a couple of good books to read would be Periodization BY Tudor Bompa and Science and Practice of Strenght Training by Vladimir M Zartosky(sp)
These are world renowned scientists,coaches, teachers who are not pushing a fad.
You can base your opinion on experience and knowledge, these will help you form a better one.
Anyways who said anything about periodization?

The body must be cycled through levels of low and high intensities you cannot go full steam all the time,read my post again.Thats what the quote was refferring too, it is common sense.Thus trainin to failure all the time goes against this principle.

Define the defintion of failure?

[chris mason]

I have one of Hatfield's books on powerlifting already. My posts should make it obvious that I am referring to concentric failure. I mentioned doing as many reps as possible.... nothing about negatives etc. Periodization is the variance or cycling of trianing intensity, is it not? Is that not what you were referring to in your posts, varying training intensity? Varying intensity where strength and size building is concerned is unnecessary and less productive to me. I think that barring illness etc., a bodybuilder should always be moving forward at full steam. By the way, did you read my entire post and if so, how can stopping short of failure not be a hit or miss proposition at best?

[Edited by chris mason on 02-03-2001 at 08:34 PM]

[Behemouth]

yeah you're right the running thing was a bad idea but i was in a hurry and wanted to get my point across. i still disagree with the whole periodization training. i think if you stretch, eat right, get enough sleep, etc. you will still be able to recover easily if you only train each bodypart once a week and workout 3-4 times a week. Mac i am also talking about concentric failure.

[Maki Riddington]

Periodization or should I say proper periodization is one that does not simply vary intensities.It looks at tempo,recovery,rep,sets,volume looked at in months, weeks,years,exercise selection,sequence of exercises etc.....
As far as going full steam I am explaining that it is something that should not be used all the time,as far as determining whether you underworked when you purposely neglect trainig to failure that is something that a properly periodized program can take into account but cannot fully determine.The body is not a simple machine where you can just go and expect a certain result,to train to momentary failure and vary it would be a more effective way to go,I'm assuming your taking Authur Jones stance on going to muscular failure,he only took one set if I remember correctly this whole notion of taking every set is something that has been picked up through the years.

I agree with you that going to failure on one set would be a sensible approach but taking all your sets would be another story.

Like I said it is a tool that can be used by certain people more often than others,to tell evreyone to train to failure is ludicrous you know that no one is alike and we all react differently to training methods.

[chris mason]

Most people are basically very similar. People will vary in responses to training, yes, but the vast majority will not vary greatly. I recommend failure on every set, but like Arthur, I recommend very few sets overall. Arthur now doesn't tell anyone that they must use only one set per exercise. He does say that if he had it to do all over again he would do even less than he did, but he also realizes people are unique. I would rather do a couple of sets to failure and get better results than someone who does 10-20 sets. You really shouldn't subscribe to the naysayers myth that a lot of people will "burn out" if they train to failure. It demonstrates that they are missing one of the basic laws of high intensity training, low volume. If you workouts are low enough in volume and you train infrequently enough you will NOT overtrain. If you wish to use periodization in your training then that is your perogative, but if anyone who reads this wants to maximize their gains naturally then you should train to failure and use low volume and decreased frequency.

Mac, I really want you to respond to what I had to say about stopping short of failure. Explain yourself. Don't just say that a "properly designed periodization routine will take this into account", that is a logical copout. I think you are capable of a much better debate than that. Explain HOW it will handle this bump in the road.

[chris mason]

By the way, I really do respect Arthur Jones' opinions on bodybuilding. I think he is dead-on in almost everything and that he is a very smart man who speaks what he believes to be the truth regardless of the reaction. I would like to emulate that. He is also a very rich man and savvy in business. He has made a lot more money than most of the other "experts" in bodybuilding which demonstrates that savvy. The fact that he did so by flying in the face of conventional wisdom proves that point even more. The training principles he espoused in the early 70s are now pretty much the accepted norm in bodybuilding. Most of the magazines now mention overtraining etc. (while still not getting the entire picture) where they used to recommend 20 plus sets per bodypart and 5-6 days a week.

[Maki Riddington]

Hehe you seem to be ovelooking my reasons and singling out the Periodization method.I am assuming because you don't know much about it.

No method is perfect

The body will always accomadate to a program,then you hit a plateau

Begginers will make gains on almost any program

A "planned" program takes these variables into account,if your looking for Hypertrophy then intensity is not be looked at alone,it is not the only determining factor.Volume plays a large role especially for the advanced lifter.

A "planned program will cycle these two among other variables to allow for recovery periods and periods of high intensities and periods of low volume or periods of high volume and low intensity.Throwing in other variables like tempo,rep selection,rest periods exercise selection allow for recovery of the neural system as well as stimulation of it as the two are intertwined.If you have a goal, planning it through manipulation of volume would be a easier route to take rather than failing and which can have a ill effect on the nervous sytem disrupting recovery(quoted by Louie Simmons)You should base your planned program around your recovery capibilties,that means the the lower your fatigue curve is the better,which allows for a quicker recovery and the super componsation effect that will allow you to be stronger,lifting to failure always slows this process down.

To be succesful at training one must allow for long term consistency and gradual progression,to have gradual progression one must be consistent,if you insist on taking your sets to failure all the time one can only be consistent and gradual for so long.Ex- you add 2-5 pounds to your bench press every week going to failure after a while if you keep going you'll be breaking the bench press record?
plus you'll have one hell of a chest.This attaininig to your intensity and failure principle,it can only go so far.
Training to failure is so one dimensional,there are so many variables that can be altered.


I don't know what you want me to say,I am not arguing with you but in fact am arguing with what Arthur beleives.

[body]

training to faluire is not one dimensional as this is one of the components for training as you can still alter the rep speed, rep range, rest peroid between sets and exercises and training days, exercise selection it just that when you do move the weight you do until you can not lift another rep out.
if you say traininig to faluire after a while in theory you will break the world record, so this is not the best method as you are not breaking the world record for the bench i can turn this argument against peroidization as at the end of the strength increasing phase you should be breaking the world record as well if you keep getting stronger using peroidazation.

[Maki Riddington]

The difference is that it is Gradual increases that the body can adapt to.The whole point was that Chris advocates that taking all sets to failure,the sets being low volume in total.

So how can you cycle volume and intensity ,when one goes up one must come down?


Chris,I am not putting down what you beleive in,I just don't agree entirely.That is not to say that I will never use this method because I may come across someone I train that responds to taking all sets to failure,generally speaking I don't beleive it is nessacary.I made my points you made yours.
I have learned to be opened minded about training methods,because I will never know enough,I hope you do as well otherwise you are simply cheating yourself out of educating and bettering yourself in this feild.

[chris mason]

I disagree on all fronts. You guys state that the logical conclusion of my theory is a world record. You guys are not thinking things through. The logical conclusion of my theory is a world record, but only if the individual using them has the genetic potential. That is why I wanted you to spell out your thoughts, I knew there would be a logical fallacy. Another point I have (and have stated many times), is that illness and or injury will also be speed bumps on the road to progression. So constant progression for a human being is quite virtually impossible, but my method is the closet thing to it. Please don't play semantics with me either. I use the term "periodization" in a general sense to describe what you are proposing. I think it is quite sufficient. How would you describe your thoughts in a succinct fashion? Genetics are the be all and end all to all training methods. Each individual has a specific capacity and no more according to their own unique anatomy and physiology. I have trained to failure for years and have made quite good progression (barring illness, injury etc.). So I am living proof of your incorrectness. You will note that I have never said periodization doesn't work, only that it is not the best method. You guys seem to think my method will only work for a little while and the BAM, no good. That shows your lack of understanding of my methods. You need to continuously adjust your training volume and rest time as you progress to AVOID overtraining. Never said it was easy, just that it works. One last thing, being open minded is great, and I am, I have tried 99% of all training methods and routines ever invented. My being open to different training methods is exactly what has lead me to the routine which I now recommend. All of the others didn't work as well. So here I am. If some radical new method comes along I may give it a whirl, but I will probably regret it and be right back to where I am.

[degsta]

When I use periodization, I dont cycle volume. I don't think its necessary. I think varying intensties is what one should worry about.

The years I've been training, I've taken pretty much every working set to positive failure. I dont think anything less would do me any good. I change up intensities to give the body something different. But then again, I do low volume.

As far as changing volume, leave that constant. I dont see the point in changing it. That allows a person to go to failure all the time and not worry about overworking yourself with too much volume.

[chris mason]

By the way Mac, you still never answered my question about how do you maximize progress by not going to failure if you have no idea what you momentary maximum is.


My main response to your posts is on the bottom of page 2.

[Edited by chris mason on 02-04-2001 at 08:17 PM]

[Maki Riddington]

You can do it through volume loading.
Remember I never said taking one set was wrong but all,meaning several sets.

Example:You can benchpress 100 pounds 8x's with the 8th rep being concentric failure.
You are advocating low sets so I will go with 3 sets.
Your total volume would be 2400 pounds lifted.Tempo will be at 1,0,1.

You lift 100 pounds the next day or next session with higher volume and lower intensity.
6 sets of the bench press at 5 reps.
The total lifted is 3000 pounds.

These are random numbers that I've plugged in and are probally off as far as percentages go but you get my drift?

This is my main point,(Charles Poliquin) In training with any one method(failure) ,increases in size and strenght will be retarded after some period of training.

To increase hypertrophy the training intensities must be periodacally varied or kept at progressivly increasing levels.(Hakkinen and Komi,1982;Komi 1986)

To stagnate in your workouts is not overtraining as you put it:"You need to continuously adjust your training volume and rest time as you progress to AVOID overtraining".
There is more to changing a program than simply your rest periods and volume.How can you change the volume when your volume is already low?That is what your advocating?Low volume taken to failure?Go to one set to failure?If so we are back to what I said originally.

[chris mason]

This post makes me think of your other post where you complain that I am a brick wall. Are you not being a brick wall here? I think this discussion has run its course. As a final note, yes at some point you will get to using one set per bodypart (not in the beginning). Once you reach this point you will have to train less and less frequently. Obviously this progression will only continue (if you do it properly) to your GENETIC limit as I have stated before. I have a life, work, etc., so if training less often for less time helps me to progress as much as your idea which varies things continuously (but still trains just as often and with more sets) I will take mine. I will train in the most efficient method I can, will you?

[Edited by chris mason on 02-05-2001 at 10:36 AM]

[j_dubs]

Hey- how did everyone get on a completely different subject??? Mason- a looked at those sites you listed and found nothing on the subject. Maybe you could be more specific. So, you think the reason people stop progressing is because they're not giving their muscles enough time to recover??? That's interesting. If this is true, then how did this happen: I stopped progressing about 6 months ago. At the time, I was working everything once a week - clearly enough rest - then, I changed my routine to a 3 day split and did 3 on 1 off. Since I started this routine, I've gained over 15 pounds (with only a little bf) in 4 months. According to your "opinion" this could never happen. Looking at the situation logically, I'd say my muscles were actually not being worked enough.

Also, there's something else I'd like you to think about. I discussed this with the head of the gym I work at. She brought up the point that if your theory were true, I'd never be able to work my muscles as frequently as her. You see, we both use the same routine - 3 on 1 off - but I have gained much more muscle size than her. So, in your opinion I should need much longer to recover. However, I feel fully recovered when I work a muscle group again, whereas she is still sore sometimes. How does this hold true to your theory?

Basically, all the TRUSTWORTHY sources I have looked at say the same thing: Your muscles need a minimum of 48 hours to fully recover - PERIOD. There is no, As your muscles get bigger.......... or, Your muscles may need more time to recover when.........

Now, all the sources I have looked at don't say anything to disprove your theory, they just don't say anything about more recovery time needed as your muscles grow. Since this would be a VERY important thing to know, I just assume that they don't write it because it's not true. Also, looking at things logically and from what I have learned in school, I am lead to believe I am right. However, if you can show me a REPUTABLE study proving me wrong, I will not argue further.

BTW, whether I am right or wrong, this was a good post.


[Edited by j_dubs on 02-05-2001 at 11:40 AM]

[chris mason]

J_dubs you are just displaying your lack of reading comprehension, or possibly my lack of a clear presentation with each subsequent post. I would prefer to believe the former, but who knows? You argue (against my theory) that your muscles are bigger than the woman at the gym and therfore you should need more recovery than her (according to me). Bad argument (I'll assume it was her idea not yours), I said that this is true within the INDIVIDUAL. Again, the INDIVIDUAL. If your muscles get bigger they will require more recovery. You could have muscles 3 times the size of someone else and require less recovery than they do. Ability to recover does vary amongst individuals. Next, with some of the recent posts here I have decided that there are very few "reliable" studies, so I will not tell you to reference any. I doubt that if I did name one that you would find it "trustworthy". If you go back to the cyberpump website and read the articles by Arthur Jones about his last 50 years in the iron game (training section), you will see what I am referring to. If you wish to argue then go ahead, just be sure you make intelligent arguments (really think them through). Your analogy about your own training is also not disproving my theory. You can give your muscles too much rest as well as too little. What I said was that as you (individually) progress you will require more recovery time. You were obviously at an early, rather undeveloped stage and you were undertraining. Early in your relative developement nearly any training style wiil produce results. It is after this progression that things get interesting. I have never said that finding the correct balance was easy, just that it is necessary for efficient developement. Of course drugs can change the whole equation, so if you dabble in those then this is all moot. Again, think for yourself, you have seen my aruguments and those of others, you should try them both and see which works best for you and then decide. If you want my advice on how to do my system properly I will be happy to provide a routine to you.

[Edited by chris mason on 02-05-2001 at 01:38 PM]

[j_dubs]

Originally posted by chris mason
You were obviously at an early, rather undeveloped stage and you were undertraining. Early in your relative developement nearly any training style wiil produce results. It is after this progression that things get interesting.

Actually, I am not in my early stages of training. I have been training for 4 years seriously (5 total) and at the time, 3 and a half. At this point, I had reached plateaus before and overcome them, and I had gained over 20 pounds OF MUSCLE since I started. I believe I was undertraining, but you wouldn't think so by my routine. At the time I was doing about 15 sets for big body parts (leg, chest, and back) and 10-12 for smaller ones (shoulders, arms). I performed every set to failure. Now, looking at that you'd definitely say I was overtraining, right??? When I hit another plateau, I SLIGHTLY decreased the number of sets I was doing (12-13 for big and 7-9 for small) but I doubled the frequency of my training and I got great results. This doesn't sound like it sticks to your theory now, does it????

[chris mason]

J_dubs, I said you were at an early stage in your developement, you could be in that stage and have trained for ten years if you have trained incorrectly. Personally, I think 20 lbs in 5 years are horrible results. Especially considering you said in a different post that 15 lbs of that is in the last 6 mos. So, 5 lbs of muscle in 4.5 years, or 20 lbs in 5 years, not very good. That must say something about your training techniques. I asked you to think things through and you obviously aren't. If you slightly decreased your number of sets and doubled your frequency then made gains you were obviously undertrained. The fact that you were doing that many sets and only had gained 15 lbs of muscle proves that you were in an early stage of your personal genetic potential for size and strength. That is why doing more stimulated gains, you are not able at your current levels to stress your body enough to require a reduction in volume and or frequency. You will soon require a reduction of that sort if you wish to start making some appreciable gains for your efforts. I gained 60 lbs of muscle (well, I suppose some was fat)in my first 2.5 years of training, and most of that was in the 2nd year when I stared to train correctly and eat enough food. Look, I really don't want to argue with you, you are welcome to train any way you please, but if you are going to disagree, please THINK FIRST.

[The Cobra]

I'm brand new here, but I see something that just makes me want to laugh. You guys are here having the exact same arguments that people have had about training since good old 'Ug' lifted the very first wheel over his head and realized it was fun. Bodybuilding is a very scientific sport. If you apply science to your training, nutrition, and rest you will get much further than just going in and throwing some iron around. Mr. Mason, I urge you to review your standpoint on many of the topics that you post around here. Your ideas about intensity and volume are understood and taken to heart. The age old argument between low-volume/high-intensity and volume training will never be put to rest by analyzing each training method and picking one. I was almost horrified by your comment about periodization being a fad. Periodization is as much a fad as is Arthur Jones' whims. Periodization has been around a long, long time, and it's a very good way of putting on muscle. What you and everyone understands deep down (but sometimes won't admit it out of love for a particular training method) is that all of these methods work. If you stay on the EXACT same training method for a long time, your results will diminish and then disappear. That works for volume training, Heavy Duty training, periodization, anything. The best option is to use ALL of the routines. Cycle them, use new ones, whatever. Mr. Mason, as an experienced member of the bodybuilding community, you have the responsibility to teach newcomers well. Locking your mind into one training style is not a good thing to teach new trainees. I understand that you're well knowledged in your areas and that you have done quite well in building your body. You may be much bigger and stronger than the majority of the people that post on this forum, but you are not always right, nor are you always the biggest. I will be around for a while. I, like yourself, am quite established in the physique department, and even moreso in the strength department. Your method of training is excellent, but it is not the only one. Do not forget this, and certainly don't dismiss someone's opinion because they are a few pounds lighter than you are, or they haven't been training as long. That's just plain not nice. If you pull that kind of crap, the next guy that's bigger than you will crush you like a bug. How would you feel? 250 (or whatever you weigh) is plenty big, but, believe it or not, there are guys out there that DO weigh more than you, and ARE better.

[chris mason]

First off, I don't feel the need to call myself Cobra (oooh), I use my own name which I think says a lot. Second, I said periodization has come into vogue recently (I am sure it has been around for a while as very few things are actually "new"), that doesn't mean it hasn't been around for some time or that it wasn't popular in the past. My ideas aren't outdated, outmoded, or wrong. Yes, other systems work, just not as well. I only mentioned the size of others when I was laughed at by a beginner who had no right to. I do belive my size is important, because unlike a lot of others I do not take anabolics. There are some, but not very many people who have achieved the results I have without their use. I have been on the same system for years and have done quite well thank you. I really do find it amusing that people have a problem with my ideas. I also notice that those same people cannot argue in an intelligent manner. There will always be people bigger and stronger and smarter than myself and I am quite comfortable with that, are you? Funny, I have never been squashed like a bug and I have spoken with a lot of people. Please don't threaten me either, I don't take kindly to it and I do take your statement as such. I certainly don't take your words as law and I don't expext you to take mine as such. You do as you wish and so shall I. I will promise you this, the methods I espouse are better than any other I have ever seen or tried and I have tried them all. Go spit your "cobra" venom elsewhere.

[The Cobra]

I certainly did not "spit my cobra venom" anywhere. Nor did I threaten you. Do you honestly think I'd care about you if I met you in real life? You're just a guy that works out, like myself. I simply asked you to nod to beginners that there are more ways of training than your method. Maybe for yourself, your training method does work best. I can guarantee you that that is not the way it is for the majority. In fact, I found the exact opposite from your discoveries as I progressed in my lifting career. At first, I made much better gains on a very abbreviated program like those proposed by Mentzer and Jones. As I became more advanced, I found that my body responded better to a higher volume of training. My best gains have been on a 5 day split, training chest, back, legs, shoulders, arms. I've also had terrific gains using powerlifting routines. My lifts are quite large for a "natural lifter" which is kind of a funny term. See, I've never used anabolics, period. So I am "natural". You HAVE, at some point or the other taken some steroids. So see, you are never going to be natural. Sure, you probably could've gotten to the same point without that dabble in deca, but still, you can't really call yourself natural. That's not what the word means. Maybe you're 'reborn natural' or something like that. Whatever you want to call it. I did in no way "threaten you". I just wanted to remind you what it was like when you were a kid, learning and experimenting with lifting protocols. I'm sure that you have a huge wealth of knowledge up in your head, Mr. Mason, but no one will listen if you come across as a close-minded, arrogant guy that thinks he rules the training world because he's made some good gains. There are people like myself who have gotten as big as you, bigger in fact, (255, 5'10") all naturally, and who do espouse a volume regimen. You are not the be-all, end-all to weightlifting, Mr. Mason.

[chris mason]

Yes I have taken steroids in my life. I took them for a total of 3-3.5 months and I hardly think that qualifies me as a steroid user. I haven't taken them in over 7 years and if you think they have a lasting effect of 7 years in any sort of positive way you are dead wrong. In fact, they caused injuries to me and I wish I had NEVER taken them. I believe I would be further ahead today. I really think it is fuking funny that quite a few of you can't take any disagreement. I have never claimed to be the be "the man" in bodybuilding. Quite a few of you seem to like to try to ridicule me and get quite agrressive with me in your posts. When I state my opinion, I do so in a way that attempts to be clear and intelligent. When some of you do it you seem to get quite angry. You know what, I'm getting quite angry and now that I think about it you really aren't worth it. I hope that your training goes well and that you really are as big and strong as you say. I hope that you are natural. I hope you get along well in life. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am extremely comfortable with my ideas and suggestions and I will continue to post my thoughts on this site. I hope you are as confident and honest about your training and opinions as I am. If that is so then the readers on this site can see both sides of the argument and make their own intelligent decisions about training. I challenge all of you to try my methods for yourself. I know that very few of you understand how to properly do that so I would be happy to offer any advice. Once you have given it a proper go try the advice of others that contradicts mine and make your own decision.

[Maki Riddington]

I'm being a brick wall huh?
To get my point across if that is the outcome then yes.
I don't argue with you because I get kicks out of it,I do so because you are so set in your ways.I have never once seen you agree with someone on any board that I've seen you post on.It's always your way,because you are living proof,and because you haven't seen anyone acheieve what you have,ever stop to think that maybe you can't group yourself with everyone else.You keep telling me that you are living proof of how I am inncorrect,Like I said before some people are blessed with the fact they recover a little quicker than the rest or they can activate more motor units with each lift.

I made many points on my arguement,I even answered your last question and I will do so again this time being more exact.

Bob does 4 sets of a dumbell chest press.
He does his first set with 80lbs 10xs.
Second set he does 70lbs 9xs(failure)
Third set he does 70lbs 8xs
4th set he does 70lbs 7xs(failure)

Total volume lifted 2480 pounds with the average intensity being 72.94 pounds.

Now lets look at this way with one set to failure.
80lbs x9,80lbs x6,80lbs x6(failure),80lbs x5,80lbs x4,70lbs x5

Total volume would be 2750 pounds.
Average intensity would be 78.57.
You be the judge.
You may not claim to be the man but you sure come across as the man.It's not about who's method is the best,because they are not ours,you know as well as I do that there is not one most effective method or one that comes close to being the most effective.
We can agree to disagree.
BTW Cobra,it's nice to see I'm not alone on this subject.

[Edited by mac sloan on 02-05-2001 at 08:57 PM]

[The Cobra]

Glad you think so. That's all I wanted to hear. Just wanted acknowledgement that your training methods are not the clear-cut best.

By the way, I want to make sure that everyone understands something. I am NOT saying that his methods do not work. His method of training is a good method, and it will work for a while. However you can make much better progress by cycling methods of training. For example, a good way to workout for the next 12 months would be to start with a periodization routine to get some heavy weights moving (4 months), a good volume to routine to get some serious mass (4 months), then a training protocol similar to Mason's for the last four months to continue growing. I will give you a 99% guarantee that you would gain more strength and overall mass than just using the abbreviated type of intensity routine for an extended period of time. I simply disagree with Mason's statements that his training is the absolute best, period. That's it. End of story.


[Edited by The Cobra on 02-05-2001 at 09:07 PM]

[chris mason]

Mac, I am glad that your perception is that I am "the man" since you are so sure of yourself you MUST be correct. You perceive me to be "the man" from my posts even though I don't claim to be. I guess I am.

Your response about volume doesn't make sense to me. If I did one set to failure I wouldn't be doing 5 sets as you listed. I would perform 2 warmup sets and then perform 1 set to failure. Period. No more. I would not even count the warmups because I use light enough weights that they don't come anywhere near muscle stimulating levels. Your post still did not answer the question of which rep to stop at during your non warmup sets. You still don't know your current strength levels during each workout until you actually do them. If you are implying that total poundage lifted in a particular session is muscle stimulating I must disagree. I could do sets all day with 50 pounds on the squat and probably lift 10-15000 pounds in one session, but I don't think I would be building much in the way of muscle or strength. The key component to volume being a form of progression is time. If one can lift more weight in the same period of time, then that is a form of progression, not just lifting more weight over a number of sets with no regard to time.

One more question, in your post Bob did the 80s for 10 (not to failure) and then did the 70s for 9 to failure. What happened to poor Bob, his strength dropped 10 lbs and more than 1 rep after a set not performed to failure. Seems a little weird to me. Must be all that volume ;)

[Edited by chris mason on 02-05-2001 at 09:25 PM]

[Cackerot69]

in case you haven't noticed, I'm the man!

btw, i was lmao at "Bob".

keep this debate going, i'm loving it...lots of good info.

[Maki Riddington]

Unfortunately I can not answer that question for Bob because I have taken this from a Q&A and this was a question.

Again I did not put time in but obviously time is a factor.
If I said he did this with 2 min rest periods he would be getting the same if not more of a result.

What rep you stop at is determined by you,you know when your going to fail,just stop one rep short.You can still gauge your strenght levels by going to failure I just don't advocate doing all your sets to failure.I have said this before and I will say it again.

Going to failure which is high intensity "does not allow for the endocrine system to recuperate fully which in turn can cause adrenal depletion"(Charlles Poliquin)
Thus it needs to be cycled.
Oh but you just allow for longer recovery periods.Days,weeks,months?You cannot possibly inncur that amount of muscle damage that one needs several weeks or months as you have mentioned, one will end up only doing one set to failure.
It looks to me that neither of us will change our veiws so I will leave it at that.

[gino]

Oh yeah, and Life4ever, I've been training all sets to failure for a year now, and I'm far from overtrained. It was the best alteration to my training routine I've made since I started 10 years ago. I'm bigger, stronger, and look better than ever before. I cut my workout time in half, too.

[chris mason]

Gino, do my eyes deceive me? We actually agree, maybe just a little? Mac, you're right, lets just move on.

[Maki Riddington]

I agree.

[Cackerot69]

i don't agree.

keep debating :)

[gino]

Chris - please don't point out the fact that we agree, or I'll have to start high volume training. LOL

[Cackerot69]

LMAO @ gino!

[j_dubs]

Mason- back to the original subject. I still want to see some kind of physiological evidence that your muscles need more time to recover as they get bigger. Again,because this would be such an important fact to consider when training, I would assume I could find it in the tens of sources I have searched through, but I haven't. BTW, I don't care what some guy says, no matter how big or strong he is. Cobra is right in that there is not only one way to train and some methods may work better for others. For example, would you prescribe the same exact workout for a mesomorph, an ectomorph, and a endomorph??? According to your theory, (and since you're SO BIG) you should only have to do about one set per bodypart per month. By the time you're 50, you'll only have to do one set a year. HAHAHAHA!! You make me laugh. Also, YOU'RE the one that won't listen to anyone else. Why don't you look at my posts; I have argued my point, but am willing to accept substantial evidence that you are right. However, you have failed to show me any.

Oh yeah, I have gained 40 pounds in my 4 years of serious training, but just to be safe, I estimated only 20 pounds of PURE MUSCLE. There's a BIG difference between weight gain and muscle gain.

[Edited by j_dubs on 02-07-2001 at 08:40 AM]

[chris mason]

J_dubs, you obviously don't read my posts very carefully, or you have a low reading comprehension level, or you have a poor retention of what you have read. The training I espouse takes into account individuality, I almost always present guidelines and then tell people to experiment for themselves. The thing you keep missing (or whatever) is that each individual has a genetic limit. So no, you wont be doing one set a year. A asinine statement like that proves that you just don't get it. Yes, you must reduce volume as you get bigger, but you will most certainly reach your limit before your training becomes as ridiculous as your example. Please don't be upset with me that you were "conservative" in your estimation of your gains in muscle mass. I merely assumed that you are intelligent enough to know that I would read everything YOU have to say and use it in my responses if it makes sense to do so. If someone only gains 20 lbs of muscle in 4.5 years and they are of normal height, that sucks! YOU are the one who said it, I only responded to it. Now, for physiological proof, I do not have a specific study which I can refer you to. I will find one soon and post it for you, but I fear that you will not accept the study when it is presented to you. That is O.K. I don't expect you to. I have not, as of yet, laughed at your responses although I certainly feel I could have. It also seems that you feel the need to get aggressive, kind of like a cornered animal. Are you nervous because your view of the bodybuilding world is being turned upside down? Whatever it is, it really makes you come across as a juvenile. I don't listen to others if what they have to tell me makes no sense and or I have tried it before and it did not work. I would expect you to do the same. Just do me one favor, read my posts and then present your case in an intelligent fashion, if you cannot, then please don't bother.


Actually, I have just found one allusion to my thought by none other than Fred Hatfield. Now, I don't agree with quite a few of Fred's thoughts, but most of you seem to value his opinion. This reference is in the section about heavy training in his book The Complete Guide to Power Training. He is discussing recuperation time and he states, "Younger and smaller lifters generally recuperate faster than older/bigger lifters. However, 3-5 days is generally enough time for the in-shape lifter. The big guys sometimes need 5-7 days for full recuperation." Now, if we assume that as one gets older they progress and get bigger and stronger then I would say that his statements back what I have to say. Obviously youth enhances recovery time as well, which I have never disputed, but again, age and size are generally related. The longer an individual trains, the bigger he gets (hopefully) up to his genetic limit. Remember one more thing, high level powerlifters take steroids just like high level bodybuilders, so the rest periods he is advocating are for those who are "enhanced" with drugs. So, if a big powerlifter takes 5-7 days and he uses steroids, how long would a natural trainee require?

[Edited by chris mason on 02-07-2001 at 11:48 AM]

[papaya_squishy]

Hey Cobra, I was interested in the training method you were suggesting. The one regarding a periodization training for 4 months, and then a volume training....etc..etc..

Anyhow, can you explain what those types of training methods involve and suggest some routines for me to use if I were to follow it..Greatly appreciated. Thanks

[j_dubs]

Mason- I am respectfully giving up this argument. I am sticking with my beliefs that come from experience, other's experiences, and my knowledge of the human body. Again, you MAY be right, but unless you come up with some kind of study backing up your theory, I refuse to believe you. That's just my choice. However, I am still interested in reading a study on the subject (if you can find one) and, if it looks like a competent study, I will accept it for what it is.

If I came across as agressive or hostile at any time, I apologize. It's just that what you are telling me is hard to believe. Even if bigger muscles did take slightly longer to recuperate for some reason, I can't imagine it being as big a deal as what you're telling me.

I won't hold any grudge over anything that was said, and I also won't hold any judgement over your knowledge on other aspects of training (which is usually very accurate and usefull). I hope you do the same.

Peace, j_dubs

[chris mason]

Fair enough, and I appreciate the polite reply.

[Edited by chris mason on 02-07-2001 at 07:56 PM]