Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 64

Thread: The Real Deal

  1. #1
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,625
    No, not Evander Holyfield, the real deal about training. Lately, there have been posts that compare bodybuilding to powerlifting, and powerlifting to Olympic lifting. The inevitable arguments about which training methods are best sprout up. So, you get a lot of people saying a lot of things. Well, I'm gonna tell you the REAL DEAL!

    First off, we are going to discuss training and injuries. You injure yourself when the force created by a weightlifting movement exceeds the capacity of the connective tissues. Now, force is force. If you bench pressed 200 lbs, and the rep took 6 seconds, you create a certain amount of force. If you bench press the same 200 lbs, but the rep only takes 3 seconds, you have greatly increased the force placed on your connective tissues. Do you get it? The force generated in a movement, if all other factors are equal, is less if you lift the weight in a slower, more controlled fashion. Bouncing the weight off of your chest also dramatically increases the force involved. Now, muscular stimulation has a direct correlation to intensity. Intensity being defined as a percentage effort of your momentary maximum. In other words, if at a given moment your muscles were capable of lifting 100 lbs, and you lifted 100 lbs you were using 100% intensity. So, what is the lesson here? The lesson is, train in a slower more controlled fashion, taking your sets to failure, and you will have sufficiently stimulated your muscles while at the same time reducing the chance of injury to almost zero. This means that unless you plan to compete in Olympic weightlifting, you should avoid those exercises. You should all exercises that involve explosive movements. Now, I am sure that there are certain people who will cry foul at this advice. They will say, "Studies have shown that Olympic weightlifting is the safest kind of weightlifting there is, no one gets hurt if they perform these exercises properly..." Let's think about that. If there are studies that show this, do you think that they could be biased in some way? Of course they could. Even if they are not, were the studies not using successful competing athletes? Probably. If they were, can we use the information they have given us and apply it to trainees in general? No we can't. Again, think about it, doesn't it make sense that these athletes are genetic superiors who probably have much stronger than average connective tissues? Yes it does, and wouldn't the people who don't have this advantage have been weeded out over time? Yes they would. Like I said in the intro, force is force, and tears and injuries occur when the momentary force exceeds the capacity of the connective tissues. So, avoid exercises which will maximize the possibility of injury.

    I am in the weighlifting game for as long as my body will allow it. I have been training for nearly 14 years and it has been a passion of mine for that entire time. I have learned a lot over the years, some of it the hard way. I want you all to learn from my mistakes. Even a couple of years ago I would not have given you the advice to train with all exercises in a slow and controlled fashion. This is one I have had to learn the hard way. When I was in my early 20s, I could train with little regard to such things and suffer very few obvious consequences. However, over the years, the injuries and even the little things I did not recognize as injuries have built up. So, with whatever wisdom my years of training and study have taught me, I strongly suggest you train smart!

    Ok, we have ruled out Olympic lifts for sensible training. We have also determined that it is best to train in a slow and controlled fashion. That doesn't mean you need to use light weights, it means you need to train under control, but use as much weight as your target reps will allow. You will get bigger and stronger. You will be able to continue to train without injury while others around you fall like flies. Consistency is the name of the weightlifting game, trust me. Now, I am sure that all of you know that I advocate HIT training with a minimum of sets performed to failure and plenty of rest. I don't, however, tell people exactly how many sets or reps to perform because I am intelligent enough to know that people are unique, and my optimum number of sets may not be yours. I also know that there ARE certain don'ts when it comes to the iron game. For the vast majority of trainees, 5-6 sets to failure for large muslces and 3-4 for small ones will be the maximum number of sets to perform. So don't perform more than 6 sets to failure for large muscles, and 4 for smaller muscles. Don't increase the numbers of sets performed as you progress, decrease the sets. Don't train with explosive movements and don't train with sloppy form. Don't train more than 4 times per week. Don't think that some movements build "bulk" and some define. If you train with any movement to failure in a progressive fashion, and allow your muscles to recover, then your muscles will grow. So, if you define "bulk" as larger, stronger muscles, any movement is a bulking movement. Don't believe that training is 80% diet. If your body gets the necessary nutrients, and the necessary amounts of protein are much less than most people think, and you train properly, you will progress regardless of the specific foods ingested. Looking lean is 80% diet, but not gaining muscle. The average American diet (or that of almost any developed nation) provides more than enough nutrients for muscular gains. So, one more time, if you eat enough, and train correctly, the gains will come regardless of whether or not you eat a no fat, low carb, high protein (but only certain kinds of protein and fats like the diet nuts recommend) super diet.

    So, in conclusion, train in a controlled fashion, train to failure, train briefly, get plenty of rest, don't obsess over your diet (unless you want to be ripped), and you will be a bigger, stronger, and more consistent trainee than 90% of the people out there.

  2. #2
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    5
    yes master

  3. #3
    Geordie The_Chicken_Daddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Grace
    Posts
    6,187
    Nice post chrisy mate
    "Geordie/'d3c:di/n. & adj. Brit colloq. n. 1 a native of Tyneside. 2 the dialect spoken on Tyneside. adj. of or relating to Tyneside, its people, or its dialect. [the name George + -IE]

  4. #4
    Canadian
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Posts
    438
    sound advice
    "Discipline is never an end itself, only a means to an end." - Robert Fripp

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    0
    "The harder you train, the harder it is to give up" ~Vince Lombardi~

  6. #6
    Reborn hero Sinep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    674
    Hey Chris, what do you have to say about the blood principle?
    I tend to believe I had a good bicep workout only I leave the gym with my arms pumped and hurting
    "Damn, I'm looking good" -Duke Nukem
    "I look cool dude" -Pig From the Sky

  7. #7
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,625
    You should have created a new thread to ask this question because it will cause this thread to go off on a tangent, but I will answer you. I think that it is psychologically very satisfying, but that it is physiologically unnecessary. So, I don't think it is a negative, just not a "must do".

  8. #8
    Mystic Eric
    Guest
    chris, seriously, i really appreciate you spending all this time on giving us your wisdom and knowledge. i have learned a lot from you

  9. #9
    Gaglione Strength Chris Rodgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    LI,NY
    Posts
    9,266
    Sounds good!
    Best Meet Lifts(Raw w/wraps):
    @165- 435 SQ 270 BE 560 DL.....1255 total
    @181- 535 SQ 300 BE 570 DL.....1400 total
    Best Meet Lifts(Multi-ply):
    @148- 575 SQ 315 BE 515 DL.....1400 total
    @165- 680 SQ 380 BE 540 DL.....1555 total
    @181- 700 SQ 375 BE 535 DL.....1605 total
    Best Gym Lifts(Raw w/wraps)
    545 SQ 305 BE 585 DL

  10. #10
    Proud Father Maki Riddington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    5,323
    Here is a article by a HIT jedi who advoactes what Chris is refferring to about the dangers of explosive training.
    Of course there is always another side to the story,if you go to NSCA's website you will read a brief overview of there position statemnt on explosive training.


    The following article is by Ken Mannie, strength coach of Michigan State (at last recollection)


    The subject of explosive weight training is one that has been in the center of a maelstrom among strength and conditioning practitioners for quite some time. Many individuals and some associations advocate the use of so-called explosive weight training movements, which purportedly offer trainees a distinct advantage in speed and power development over those who choose to incorporate more controlled movements.

    It is also suggested by some that explosive weight training movements prepare the body for the exorbitant, potentially traumatic forces of competition more so than other strength training techniques.

    For the purpose of this article, only the explosive lifts will be discussed. These include-but are not solely restricted to-the Olympic lifts (i.e., the snatch and clean and jerk), power clean, speed-squats, push jerks and any variations of these movements. Basically any movement performed in a rapid, jerky manner where momentum plays a key role in the execution and or completion of the movement would be included.

    The intent of this article is three-fold:

    1) to elucidate the fact that ballistic weight training movements carry with them the highest injury potential of any resistance exercises performed in the weight room setting;

    2) to dispute the erroneous notion that there exists a definitive physiological or biomechanical mechanism by which ballistic weight training movements result in a distinct and irrefutable advantage over controlled, high tension resistance exercises in producing and/or enhancing speed, power or athletic skill development; and

    3) to offer safer more efficient and more productive training alternatives.

    The Risk Factor
    It is a an accepted premise that all types of resistance modes and/or ideologies will have a certain degree of risk attached to them. This is why instruction and supervision are paramount in resistance training programs, regardless of the lifting movements being performed. There will also be contradictions regarding exercise prescription in isolated cases due to past injuries, structural abnormalities and other physical impediments. As with any physical activity, there exists an assumption of risk with strength training and this is why the participants must be well-schooled regarding lifting/spotting techniques and the myriad of safety guidelines which are of utmost importance in the weight room setting. With judicious care, the majority of the environmental risks associated with the weight room can be effectively controlled.

    However, the aforementioned ballistic lifts are immersed in inherent dangers even when supervision and correct techniques are evident. There exists a prepoderance of evidence (4,5,8,9,10,14,17,21,22,23,29,33,34,38) indicating that so-called explosive weight training movements carry a high risk of injury, both acutely and cumulatively, to muscle tissue, fascia, connective tissue and bony structures. Westcott (38) states that the acceleration and deceleration forces placed on involved tendons, ligaments, muscle fascia and bone create both initial and terminal stresses on these structures which are likely to produce training injuries.

    Several of the lifts being examined here - primarily the Olympic lifts, power cleans and their analogs - cause repetitive forced hyperextensions of the lumbar spine. This forced hyperextension can lead to any number of physical anomalies and injury defects including lumbar sprain, strain, disc injury or a condition known as spondyloysis which consists of a fracture of the pars interarticularis (an area between the superior and inferior articulating facet on a single vertebra). Dangles et al. (3) noted a 44% incidence of spondolysis in a group of 47 Olympic lifters, while Kotani et al. (22) identified the condition in 30.7% of 26 male lifters. It is important to note that these were *experienced lifters*.

    Dr. Lyle Micheli, past president of The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has also indicated that ballistic weight training contributes to spondolysis (14).

    While the low back region is a major concern with regard to the injury potential of these lifts, their nature embodies concern for other areas of the body as well. Dr. Fred Allman, another past president of the ACSM, has commented on numerous occasions on the danger in performing Olympic lifts, as well as the hazards of introducing speed to weight lifting movements. Dr. Allman has also stated that the performance of the Olympic lifts provides little benefit to athletes in their training programs for any sport other than Olympic lifting (9).

    Kulund (23) has mentioned injuries to the wrist, elbow and shoulder while performing Olympic lifts - injuries which were obviously related to the acceleration and/or deceleration forces imposed on these areas.

    Hall (17) concluded from her study on the clean and jerk that fast lifting speeds generate dramatic increases in compressive force, shear force, torque and myoelectric activity in the lumbar region.

    Matt Brzycki, {who used to post to this newsgroup for anyone who didn't know that} the Strength and Conditioning Coach at Princeton University, offers this perspective:

    "Using momentum to lift a weight increases the internal forces encountered by a given joint: the faster a weight is lifted, the greater these forces are amplified - especially at the points of acceleration and deceleration. When these forces exceed the structural limits of a joint, an injury occurs in the muscles, bones or connective tissue. No one knows what the exact tensile strength of ligaments and tendons are at any given moment. The only way to ascertain tensile strength is when the structural limits are surpassed" (11).

    Dr. Ken Leistner who has long excoriated ballistic lifting in training programs, points out that the inclusion of these movements in strength programs may, in fact be the genesis of injuries incurred later in practise in games. As Dr. Leistner states, "...the continuous exposure to acceleration/deceleration forces present when doing cleans, snatches and jerks can produce tissue damage which literally is an *accident waiting to happen*" (26). In younger athletes, the risks of damage to the epiphyseal are on the bones is also a cause for concern, as complete ossification may not take place until the late teens or older.

    Some individuals take to task the injury potential of this type of weight training by citing the Zemper et al. study (40), which looks at time-loss injuries incurred in the weight room. These same individuals have interjected, "Many of the exercises used by those players would be considered speed-strength exercises...the average team can expect one time-loss injury from the weight room every three years." The unanswered questions, however, include:

    1) How many of the injuries incurred were a result of *ballistic* training?; 2) This survey measured acute injuries; what about cumulative trauma which was *aggravated* on the field and not attributed to the weight room?; and 3) Is *any* injury in the weight room acceptable?

    Many proponents of explosive training ignore the *single most* vulnerable area subected to the compressive and shear forces propagated by the majority of the ballistic lifts - the lower back region.

    Some authors have suggested that explosive weight training movements are necessary in increasing the tensile strength of viscoelastic tissue as well as increasing bone density and strength. While it has been shown that progressive resistance training, in general, can accomplish these goals, there exists *no* definitive scientific finding indicating that explosive lifting induces a better adaption than high tension, velocity-controlled repetitions - relative to the parameters of the repetition scheme, safe range of motion, and controlled movement speed will strengthen the aforementioned tissues without the introduction of unnecessary momentum (6,7,11,15,21,25,26,31,32,38). You need not perform ballistic weight training movements for injury prevention purposes ANY MORE THAN YOU NEED TO POUND YOUR HEAD WITH A HAMMER IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR A CONCUSSION {my emphasis}

    Contrary to the suggestions of some individuals, injuries do occur in the weight room and have been documented in the literature (5,9,10,29,33,34). Many of these injuries can be directly contributed to ballistic lifting, not merely the failure of the participants to comply to safety guidelines. Also, it is categorically unacceptable to compare weight room injuries with sports-related injuries and to subsequently state that there are fewer injuries in the weight room. Strength training for athletes is NOT a sport, nor is it an activity where injuries should be commonplace. The comparison is ludicrious.

    It should also be noted that certain sports, especially football, place inherent technique stresses on the lumbar spine (16,18,19,26,36). In light of this, performing ballistic lifts which have proven to be traumatic to the same region is hardly the prudent thing to do. For example, the Zemper study noted a total of 18 injuries involving either the lower or upper back. The majority of the total injuries were incurred by defensive linemen and offensive linemen/tight ends (19 total). It would be interesting to note the type of lifting which was being performed when these injuries were sustained, but the study fails to examine those important specifics. Zemper states that the most likely explanation for the higher incidence of injury positions is that "...they spend more time in the weight room and generally are lifting more total weight" (40). Could the actuality that these positions are also the ones most persistently directed by their coaches to perform cleans, snatches, etc., be a factor as well?

    The underlying tone of explosive lifting proponents, when discussing injuries, is that they are a part of athletics, therefore the fact that certain lifts may carry inherent risks must be accepted. This thinking represents a negligent haphazard approach in the training of athletes who are not competitive weightlifters.

    It is important to note that the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine, an organization which happens to distinguish between *strength training* and *weightlifting* in it's position paper, contraindicates the Olympic lifts in training regimens. Also, the ACSM, the world's foremost authority on training protocol since being founded in 1954, recommends safer movements in their position paper and makes no mention of the inclusion of the Olympic lifts in training (6).

    There is no question that the medical community needs to become more actively involved in this controversy. It is my personal belief that, with their continuous input, we will be able to slam the door on this dangerous and unnecessary type of lifting for the general athletic population.

    Ballistic Weight Training is Unnecessary
    It is the contention of explosive lifting proponents that ballistic lifting movements are necessary in enhancing athletic performance in addition to "simulation movement patterns and velocity and acceleration of many sports movements." These claims are *not* supported with definitive, conclusive research data. Some individuals make numerous "suggestions" taken from its and pieces of the scientific literature which fit into their ideology, but the smoking gun is nonexistent. At best, the conflicting data and/or lack of irrefutable findings on these matters render the entire controversy inconclusive.

    Some explosive lifting proponents have conceded that, "Slow movement speed does not necessarily mean that an exercise is not explosive. A slow movement may be considered explosive if the athlete applies maximal force as rapidly as possible, although the weight moves slowly due to its great inertia." If one performs a maximum or near maximum set of an exercise within a given repetition range, this "controlled explosion" will be in effect for the majority of the reps performed.

    This type of training can be done with exercise machines, free weights and the various velocity-controlled modes (i.e., isokinetic devices). It is definitely a safer way to train and is a more efficient manner in which to train.

    ANY type of progressive strength training will elicit gains in muscle hypertrophy and strength with concurrent enhancement in the contractile properties of muscle tissue (6,8,11,27,39). However, high force/ low velocity movements produce longer periods of continuous muscle tensition during both the concentric and eccentric phases, thereby placing heavier demands on the target muscles (7,11,12,15,27,31,32,39).

    There exists an inverse relationship between movement speed and muscle force production, which dictates that maximal tension is developed at slow velocities (though the "intent" to move rapidly is evident) and decreases as the speed of contraction increases (7,8,12,15,27,31,32,38,39). Low force/high velocity movements, are therefore less productive with respect to maximal force production and concomitant strength development.

    While there exists considerable controversy in the scientific literature on the mechanisms of motor unit recruitment, the most widely accepted precept is the "size principle" of activation (7,12,15,27,32,39,40). Henneman (39) states that the size of the newly recurited motor unit increases with the tension level at which it is recruited. Basically, smaller motor units are recruited first, with successfully larger units firing at increasing tension levels. Slow twitch units (Type I) ten to be smaller and produce less overall force than the intermediate and fast twitch units (Type II A, Type II AB, or Type II B). A major difference in the speed of contraction between the Type I units and the Type II units (including the intermediate Type II fibers) is the fact that they have different degrees of myosin ATPase activity.

    Myosin ATPase is intimately involved in the muscle contraction process and the fibers that have more of this activity can contract more rapidly. Also related to contractile speed is the fact that slow twitch fibers have a very poorly developed sarcoplasmic reticulum when compared to fast twitch fibers. This may help explain the response of slow twitch fibers to stimulation, as the sarcoplasmic reticulum is important for the quick release of calcium to trigger contraction. Couple this with the fact that that the troponin of Type I fibers has a low affinity for calcium when compared to the continuum of Type II fibers, and a clearer picture of the differences in contraction capabilities surfaces.

    There are also numerous metabolic differences between slow twitch and fast twitch units, due to oxidative properties which dictate energy production and endurance capacities (e.g., mitochondria supply, glycogen stores, etc.).

    The element most germane to this discussion, however is that of neural innervation. Slow units are innervated by motor neurons that tend to be much smaller - both in the diameter of their axons and in the size of their cell bodies in the spinal cord - than that of fast motor units. In addition, the net conduction velocity is much slower in the nerves of slow motor units. These differences in innervation elicit a lower threshold of activation in the slow motor units as compared to the fast motor units. The net effect of this neural mechanism is that slow units are recruited first for nearly all activities, regardless of movement speed (7,8,11,15,27,32,39,40). It is only when the INTENSITY of activation is very great or when the slow twitch units are fatigued that the larger, more powerful fast motor units are brought into play.

    Herein lies much of the controversy regarding fiber recruitment: Is there a preferential recruitment of the fast motor units when fast movement speeds are employed? Again, literature exists where "implications" and/or "suggestions" are made in favor of such an occurence, but the preponderance of currently available data do not support this viewpoint. Lesmes et al. (27) states that both muscle fiber types are actively recruited during maximal muscular contractions, regardless of the movement speed. The entire "size principle" of fiber recruitment is predicated on *muscle force production* NOT the actual *speed of movement*. Slow motor units are quite capable of inititating fast speeds of limb movement if the force requirements are low. Therefore, if the training goal is the recruitment and development of the fast twitch muscle fibers, fast weight training speeds at low intensity (i.e., high velocity/low resistance movements) represent the *least* efficient approach. As stated by Pipes, "Speed of limb movement has little to do with intensity. If anything there is an inverse relationship... you can have speed or you can have intensity; you cannot have both" (31).

    Studies by Palmieri (30) and Wenzel et al. (37) measured training speed and power development with no significant differences being found at slow, fast or a combination of slow and fast speeds. The relevance of these studies is in the conclusion of each that fast training speeds are not needed for power improvements. If controlled speed is at least as effective (if not more so) and safer than faster speed, wouldn't the controlled movement speed be the more judicious option? More importantly, if the safety and welfare of the athletes entrusted to you truly superseded any personal preference or commercial bias in training techniques, then the choice should be quite obvious.

    "Movement specifity" is a term that has long been misinterpreted by some explosive training proponents. To say that "the snatch and clean are very similar to other athletic movements such as "jumping", is to contradict many of the basic principles of motor learning.

    First of all, a clear definition of "specificity" is in order. The *encoding principle of specificity* states that the closer the influence of the practise on the test context characteristics (i.e., the competition situation), the better the practised movements will be recalled during the test (1,2,28). Simply put, your practise drills, situations, etc., should mirror the conditions under which you will be tested. Performing a certain type of lifting movement with the hope that it will transfer to a sport-specific or position-specific task is *useless*. The central nervous system acquires, stores and uses only meaningful information when movement is required (28).

    As once stated by Dr. Lyle Micheli, "...strength training has the potential to improve size and strength; skill development is something different" (25). That brief, candid statement says it all.

    Perspective On Proper Strength Training
    Strength training programs should be comprehensive in nature with the emphasis placed on exercising the major muscle complexes throughout their fullest range of functional motion. The selected movements should include a variety of multi-joint and single-joint exercises, utilizing a good mix of machines and free weights whenever possible, and be safe and relatively easy to perform in terms of technique.

    Set and repetition schemes can be varied, but the program should strive for intense efforts, accurate record keeping, a system for progressive overload and time efficiency. Movements requiring excessive momentum for the execution and/or completion of the lift should be avoided
    Maki Fit Blog

    At Large: Optimize Your Body | Dynamic Conditioning |
    My articles on Wannabebig

    "Soli Deo Gloria"
    "Test all things; hold fast what is good.": 1 Thessalonians 5:21

    "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
    So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
    Romans 7:14-25

    "Judo is not about strength. Yet in the learning curve, all Judokas get strong. Only with time do you learn where to apply that strength."
    The Art of Judo

  11. #11
    Equal Opportunity Offender Budiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    The discard pile.
    Posts
    0
    Holy **** did anybody read that??


    My brain wont hold that much text!

    Hhehehe...sorry...

  12. #12
    As I Am Paul Stagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Baltimore, MD, USA
    Posts
    8,668
    Outstanding posts, gentlemen.

    Slow+controled+good form = safe productive lifting.

    Explosive movements most certainly do lead to injuries.. OL lifters DO tend to get hurt, a lot, AND those who don't have PERFECT form. They learn that form from experienced coaches, something most of us do not have access to.

  13. #13
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    N.S. Canada
    Posts
    19
    It is great to see that everyboby is in agreement on this one. Fantastic post

  14. #14
    Player Hater PowerManDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    7,850
    Oooooooooooo boy, I don't know how I let THIS one slip past me for so long...... But on to the thrashing.

    Originally posted by chris mason
    No, not Evander Holyfield, the real deal about training. Lately, there have been posts that compare bodybuilding to powerlifting, and powerlifting to Olympic lifting. The inevitable arguments about which training methods are best sprout up. So, you get a lot of people saying a lot of things. Well, I'm gonna tell you the REAL DEAL!

    ******FIRST off, there is NO real deal when it comes to ANY form of training, be it bodybuilding or any other sport. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who says there is is fooling themselves severely.


    First off, we are going to discuss training and injuries. You injure yourself when the force created by a weightlifting movement exceeds the capacity of the connective tissues. Now, force is force. If you bench pressed 200 lbs, and the rep took 6 seconds, you create a certain amount of force. If you bench press the same 200 lbs, but the rep only takes 3 seconds, you have greatly increased the force placed on your connective tissues. Do you get it?


    *****What I get is that you don't understand basic physics. You've mistaken force, which is mass x acceleration, and constant in both cases you've given, with power (force x velocity), which is the variable. Joints aren't affected by power output. This is all basic high school physics.


    The force generated in a movement, if all other factors are equal, is less if you lift the weight in a slower, more controlled fashion. Bouncing the weight off of your chest also dramatically increases the force involved. Now, muscular stimulation has a direct correlation to intensity. Intensity being defined as a percentage effort of your momentary maximum. In other words, if at a given moment your muscles were capable of lifting 100 lbs, and you lifted 100 lbs you were using 100% intensity. So, what is the lesson here? The lesson is, train in a slower more controlled fashion, taking your sets to failure, and you will have sufficiently stimulated your muscles while at the same time reducing the chance of injury to almost zero.


    *****For every study you have that says slow, controlled movements are safer, I can produce 10 more that say it isn't. Can you say that all my studies are biased, and yours aren't? Isn't that bias by itself?


    This means that unless you plan to compete in Olympic weightlifting, you should avoid those exercises. You should all exercises that involve explosive movements.


    ******Yes, why should anyone have reason to selectively stimulate the FTb fibers (which, coincidentally, have the greatest potential for hypertrophy)? Why would anyone want to develop functional strength?


    Now, I am sure that there are certain people who will cry foul at this advice. They will say, "Studies have shown that Olympic weightlifting is the safest kind of weightlifting there is, no one gets hurt if they perform these exercises properly..." Let's think about that. If there are studies that show this, do you think that they could be biased in some way? Of course they could. Even if they are not, were the studies not using successful competing athletes? Probably. If they were, can we use the information they have given us and apply it to trainees in general? No we can't.


    ******Gee, any study can be biased. What if YOUR studies are biased? Ever consider that?

    Why can't you use the information and apply it to general trainees? Isnt' that what *qualified* coaches and trainers are for (you know, people that can understand all those big words, and know how to use them for training purposes)?


    Again, think about it, doesn't it make sense that these athletes are genetic superiors who probably have much stronger than average connective tissues? Yes it does, and wouldn't the people who don't have this advantage have been weeded out over time? Yes they would. Like I said in the intro, force is force, and tears and injuries occur when the momentary force exceeds the capacity of the connective tissues. So, avoid exercises which will maximize the possibility of injury.


    ****Yes, be only what you are, and never try for more. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. I think that even those with less than average genetics can excell if we persevere in our goals. As Chris's limited understanding of physics showed in the intro, force is force. A 200 lb weight lifted in 6 seconds produces the same force as a 200 lb weight lifted in 3 seconds; what he doesn't understand is that its the *power* that has changed, not the force. Oh well, little things like that aren't important, are they?


    I am in the weighlifting game for as long as my body will allow it. I have been training for nearly 14 years and it has been a passion of mine for that entire time. I have learned a lot over the years, some of it the hard way. I want you all to learn from my mistakes. Even a couple of years ago I would not have given you the advice to train with all exercises in a slow and controlled fashion. This is one I have had to learn the hard way. When I was in my early 20s, I could train with little regard to such things and suffer very few obvious consequences. However, over the years, the injuries and even the little things I did not recognize as injuries have built up. So, with whatever wisdom my years of training and study have taught me, I strongly suggest you train smart!


    *****Training smart doesn't mean ignoring Olympic lifts or explosive training in general. Any *qualified* coach or trainer would tell you the same.


    Ok, we have ruled out Olympic lifts for sensible training. We have also determined that it is best to train in a slow and controlled fashion.


    ****No, you have expressed that it is YOUR belief, not that it is a fact.


    That doesn't mean you need to use light weights, it means you need to train under control, but use as much weight as your target reps will allow. You will get bigger and stronger. You will be able to continue to train without injury while others around you fall like flies.


    *****While who falls like flies? Chris, you obviously haven't been training with me. At or over 50% of my training sessions have involved explosive training, and I have yet to have an injury. Let's see the proof.


    Consistency is the name of the weightlifting game, trust me.


    ****Yes, trust him. He has no studies to back him up, so he *can't* be biased. Can't he?


    Now, I am sure that all of you know that I advocate HIT training with a minimum of sets performed to failure and plenty of rest. I don't, however, tell people exactly how many sets or reps to perform because I am intelligent enough to know that people are unique, and my optimum number of sets may not be yours.


    ****Yeah, but you aren't smart enough to tell them that there are other ways to train besides the psychotic HIT fantasy that yours is the best and only way to train. The reality might shock the people and rid you of your ego base.


    I also know that there ARE certain don'ts when it comes to the iron game. For the vast majority of trainees, 5-6 sets to failure for large muslces and 3-4 for small ones will be the maximum number of sets to perform. So don't perform more than 6 sets to failure for large muscles, and 4 for smaller muscles. Don't increase the numbers of sets performed as you progress, decrease the sets. Don't train with explosive movements and don't train with sloppy form. Don't train more than 4 times per week. Don't think that some movements build "bulk" and some define.


    *****Yes, the body isn't an adaptive mechanism. It doesn't respond according to different stimuli. One form of training will work consistently for years upon end. So do HIT only, avoid anything different, and you'll be ok.


    If you train with any movement to failure in a progressive fashion, and allow your muscles to recover, then your muscles will grow.


    *****I don't know where you HITers got the idea that training to failure is the stimulus for hypertrophy, but it ain't.


    So, if you define "bulk" as larger, stronger muscles, any movement is a bulking movement. Don't believe that training is 80% diet. If your body gets the necessary nutrients, and the necessary amounts of protein are much less than most people think, and you train properly, you will progress regardless of the specific foods ingested.


    ****Yeah, follow the RDA for protein. That's enough for an active athlete. <chuckle>


    Looking lean is 80% diet, but not gaining muscle. The average American diet (or that of almost any developed nation) provides more than enough nutrients for muscular gains. So, one more time, if you eat enough, and train correctly, the gains will come regardless of whether or not you eat a no fat, low carb, high protein (but only certain kinds of protein and fats like the diet nuts recommend) super diet.


    *****What do nutrients, in and of themselves, have to do with growth? That's a function of total calories ingested vs. total calories expended.


    So, in conclusion, train in a controlled fashion, train to failure, train briefly, get plenty of rest, don't obsess over your diet (unless you want to be ripped), and you will be a bigger, stronger, and more consistent trainee than 90% of the people out there.


    In conclusion, you are the standard HIT jedi, no different than a 1000 others. "Don't do explosive movements," "You won't grow unless you train to failure," "Don't train more than twice a week."

    I would give you the actual science behind the training protocols designed to cause the most hypertrophy, but you'd just say the studies were biased, then throw some Arthur Jones at me and claim its infallible. I'd invite you to join Dr. Siff's Supertraining list so that you might learn something, but you'd just get frustrated and run back to your cave where everyone agrees with you. Hell, I'm sure you'll give some lame and quite half-assed attempt to counter my facts. Feel free; I'll just do another tap-dance on your head with more facts.

    Just out of curiosity: What do you think comprises a program of explosive training? I guarantee, from your obvious fear of such training, that your ideals are incorrect. Respond back with your preconceptions and I'll tell you what such a program would actually involve.

    In short, Chris, there is no "Real Deal" when it comes to bodybuilding, or any strength-related training; trying to tell everyone that this is so is severely curbing their potential progress.

    If you can counter with anything but "the studies are biased" or random screaming, I might be more inclined to listen to you; but as it is, you're just another loud-mouthed Mentzer acolyte.


    PowerMan DL

  15. #15
    Soon to be lean... Joe Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Cambridge, England
    Posts
    10,936
    Geez here we go again...

  16. #16
    Porn Star YatesNightBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    2,028
    lol@hulk.

    I'm gonna add my 2 cents.

    Seems to be a alot of people at the moment trying to complicate something that in reality is quite simple. Rest, eat, train hard and you'll grow. There's alot of little things to learn that will aid your progress, but at the end of the day it's quite simple. Im sure people like Chris Comier, Flex Wheeler and Lee Priest aren't rocket scientists.
    * * * * * * * * *
    Yates

    hard core n. 1 irreducible nucleus. 2 colloq. a the most committed members of a society


    'Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind'

  17. #17
    Geordie The_Chicken_Daddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Grace
    Posts
    6,187
    Originally posted by YatesNightBlade
    Rest, eat, train hard and you'll grow.

    This should be a home page article on it's own. Excellent Yates.
    "Geordie/'d3c:di/n. & adj. Brit colloq. n. 1 a native of Tyneside. 2 the dialect spoken on Tyneside. adj. of or relating to Tyneside, its people, or its dialect. [the name George + -IE]

  18. #18
    MACHINE
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    on the short bus
    Posts
    0
    To a certain extent, yes that is true. But WHAT grows and in WHAT DIRECTION may be more complicated. Sure, I could sit around all day chowing cheeseburgers and chocolate cake, and get pretty big...at the expense of some inches around the waistline. AND, a little over a year ago, I was the same madman in the gym that I am now, but I've made some great gains since then thanks to my change in training style. Now, I'm not going to sit here and preach HIT principles, but I WILL tell you that I will credit MY progress with lowering my exercise/set volume and training to absolute failure. After training for a decade, gains are tougher to come by, so when you do something that triggers growth, you know exactly what it is. When I was younger, I could have done ANYTHING in the gym and grown. I don't have that luxury now, so training and diet aren't that simple.
    "He's the best damn rollerskater that ever lived...probably in the whole town" - Chris Pontius

    If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.

    5'10" 215 lbs
    Personal Bests:
    Bench 355
    Squat 505
    Deadlift 560

  19. #19
    Senior Member hemants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    1,569
    Force = mass x accelleration

    Accelleration is rate of change of velocity. eg. getting an object that is at rest moving.

    If a given mass is lifted in 6 seconds vs 1 second the latter is achieved by greater accelleration and therefore more force.

    The term explosive movement involves jerk which is rate of change of accelleration.

    Thus on this particular issue, I believe, Chris is correct.

    My scientific $0.02

  20. #20
    Geordie The_Chicken_Daddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Grace
    Posts
    6,187
    Originally posted by YatesNightBlade
    Rest, eat, train hard and you'll grow.
    Gino: say that to someone who is just starting out and they may very well stick to it. Tell them what Chris and PowerMan has said and they will most likely run off scared (not really though, it is an exaggeration).

    They will pick up the more complicated side of it as they progress.
    "Geordie/'d3c:di/n. & adj. Brit colloq. n. 1 a native of Tyneside. 2 the dialect spoken on Tyneside. adj. of or relating to Tyneside, its people, or its dialect. [the name George + -IE]

  21. #21
    Meathead Philosopher Pup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,793
    How did i know that powerman was gonna have something to say to chris. Although I don't agree that HIT is the only style of training to promote muscle growth, training to failure is a great way to train. Of course training to failure isn't really possible for extremely high volume, but it is effective. Powerman, I would like to know why you say training to failure isn't a stimulus for muscle growth. Muscle growth is stimulated by the muscle fibers tearing and growing back stronger, training to failure would strongly promote this process, I may not be a proponent of HIT training, but it does work.
    May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows you're dead.

  22. #22
    MACHINE
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    on the short bus
    Posts
    0
    That is true ChiDad - However, I think that making the assumption that everyone who reads these threads falls into that beginner/intermediate mold is wrong. What about the more experienced athletes like myself? And how about those on this site who are more experienced than me? We are not going to maximize our growth by simply resting, eating, and training - it takes many more things, like carefull planning on every element of the training lifestyle. I don't eat proportionally equal meals every 2.5-3 hours because I like to. I'd much rather pig-out 3 or 4 times a day and snack. Maybe targeting threads towards a particular crowd would be a good idea(where applicable). Chris' thread could have been targeted toward an experienced trainer who is plateauing - this is the mold that I fell into a little over a year ago. And the comment that Yates made could have been targeted towards the less experienced - like I was 6-10 years ago.
    "He's the best damn rollerskater that ever lived...probably in the whole town" - Chris Pontius

    If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.

    5'10" 215 lbs
    Personal Bests:
    Bench 355
    Squat 505
    Deadlift 560

  23. #23
    Geordie The_Chicken_Daddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Grace
    Posts
    6,187
    Right again Gino, Hene why i finsihed my post with the sentence: "They will pick up the more complicated side of it as they progress."

    "Geordie/'d3c:di/n. & adj. Brit colloq. n. 1 a native of Tyneside. 2 the dialect spoken on Tyneside. adj. of or relating to Tyneside, its people, or its dialect. [the name George + -IE]

  24. #24
    MACHINE
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    on the short bus
    Posts
    0
    I'm talking about the original post...the one I originally responded to. Apparently, an assumption had been made that the readers were beginners/intermediate. Damn you Chicken Daddy!

    And no, I will not MAKE OUT with you, so stop e-mailing me and asking. lol
    "He's the best damn rollerskater that ever lived...probably in the whole town" - Chris Pontius

    If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.

    5'10" 215 lbs
    Personal Bests:
    Bench 355
    Squat 505
    Deadlift 560

  25. #25
    Geordie The_Chicken_Daddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Grace
    Posts
    6,187
    Oh go on, just this once.........
    "Geordie/'d3c:di/n. & adj. Brit colloq. n. 1 a native of Tyneside. 2 the dialect spoken on Tyneside. adj. of or relating to Tyneside, its people, or its dialect. [the name George + -IE]

Similar Threads

  1. Finally joined a real gym
    By IdaMAN in forum Bodybuilding & Weight Training
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-18-2004, 11:56 PM
  2. Real or Artificial?
    By Berserker in forum General Chat
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-16-2003, 09:10 AM
  3. overpriced crap or the real deal (cosmetics)
    By WiNgS in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-17-2003, 10:30 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •