NEW ARTICLE - Three New Methods for Igniting Serious Size & Strength

[Joe Black]

Sorry that we're running a bit late this week guys...

In the quest for more muscle, we often get caught up in the craziest approaches to training, all for another pound of muscle or a few extra reps. However often the problems start when we get too far away from the basic premises that dictate how much we can grow.

We outline a few new methods (they stick to the basic premises) that’ll ignite some serious size and strength and get you back on track.

It's time for a change - give them a try for three to four weeks at a time and you’ll see some great gains.

Three New Methods for Igniting Serious Size & Strength

[Raleighwood]

Pretty interesting article... Some useful stuff to mix up and freshen a work out.

I can't help but notice in that last pic, Arnold's squat position looks dangerously poor.

[Rugby Dad]

Pretty interesting article... Some useful stuff to mix up and freshen a work out.

I can't help but notice in that last pic, Arnold's squat position looks dangerously poor.

^beat me to it, was gonna say same thing

1. knees appear to be buckling inward
2. looks like weight is over his knees, shins, toes; instead of sitting back with weight over hips & heels
3. can't see the lower back, but i bet it's rounded

[shayker]

I have been having a huge debate with myself for a long time now about all the training methods which are built on the post-tetanic potentiation (PPT) phenomenon (these include all various forms of wave loading: 1-6, 3-2-1, 7-5-3... and complex training).
But, it is much more likely that after a max effort you will be fatigued rather than potentiated during your subsequent efforts.
A while ago christian thibaudeau wrote a fascinating topic regarding that subject, in which he stated that the neural potentiation initially overcomes the fatigue induced by the effort.
Sadly, except for ben johnson and a few more examples, concurrent research has failed to verify this phenomenon in a consistent manner. I should also mention that the subject group tested included world class hammer throwers (not some regular joe who never lifted a barbell in his life).

Going back to the real world... I have also failed in my training to witness this mysterious potentiation. What really happened was what I excepted: I became weaker from set to set (even though i took long rests of about 3 minutes).

I have no doubt that you jimmy, talk from experience, as well as all the other great coaches who are using this loading scheme.

So, obviously I (and perhaps the researches) are doing something wrong. what is it?

P.S. I first read about the 4-5 percent solution in poliquin's "modern trends in strength and power methods".
Does this effective set-rep scheme dates back further, maybe to Russian or Bulgarian methodologies?

[pottsy09]

Pretty interesting article... Some useful stuff to mix up and freshen a work out.

I can't help but notice in that last pic, Arnold's squat position looks dangerously poor.

bodybuilders dont often care about correct technique as long as the weight they lift is heavy.

[I_Esta_5]

question. for the percent solution, why in Workout Four do you use the same weights that you used in workout two???

[Y2A]

question. for the percent solution, why in Workout Four do you use the same weights that you used in workout two???

Looks like they are using workout 2's weight with workout 1's reps. So you're adding on 5% to all 3 weeks each cycle.