10-01-07 05:13 PM - Post#355372    

This post is in response to an earler discussion elsewhere.

The idea behind cycling is nudging the body into greater and greater accomplishment, rather than trying to force it. Like all of life, growth in strength and size comes in cycles.

Stimulus is followed eventually by growth. And because growth can happen as the result of some unknown minimum of intensity (percent of 1RM), cycling poundages up and down but with an overall increase, allows the body to recover enough to respond.

In Power to the People, Pavel states that a good cycle lasts between 8 and 12 workouts. If you exercise 3 times per week, that’s an overall upward increase in poundage used over 2.5 to 4 weeks. If you follow that with a week of low intensity – exercising with resistance and reps that feel pretty light – recovery is enhanced. A full layoff might be even better, if the HST crowd is correct, because it allows you to strategically decondition ("soften up for gains," a la McCallum). A good compromise might be to go light on Week 4 (and later, on Week 8) and lay completely off after 2 or 3 cycles (at about the three-month mark).

Linear cycling

A linear cycle is one in which the weights just go up from session to session. This is what I did – or intended – during 2 productive periods of my training life. One was when I progressively pushed my bench press way beyond where it'd been before. But I got stuck with a double at my highest poundage. Unfortunately, the things I’d read about cycling hadn’t really penetrated my sometimes-thick skull, and I hit an impasse. If I’d known what I was doing, I’d have backed off to about 85 percent of that and gone slowly up again, doing triples or slightly more reps. But I was dumb and impulsive, and I turned my attention in another direction.

Another productive time was when I decided to give deadlifting a go. I was busy and chronically tired from getting up early and battling Beltway traffic, to get to work by 7:00. I worked on DLing for a few months, never having really concentrated on them before, and I added chins late in that game. Both were cut short by medical need, but not before making really good progress. My DL got pretty good for a few months’ work, and the cycle was rarely modified from a small increase almost every session.

Step cycling

On the few occasions that my DL progress slowed, I kept the poundage the same for another session. I didn’t really think about it, but it was a form of defacto step cycling. Stepping is simply alternating an increase in poundage (over several workouts) with keeping the poundage the same. So, 8 sessions might look like this: 225, 230, 235, 235, 240, 245, 245, 250.

Wave cycling

Don’t confuse this with wave loading. The best way to think about wave cycling is to look at the tried-and-true heavy-light-medium weekly mini-cycle. My favorite way of doing HLM is to make Wednesday’s heaviest set 80 percent of next Monday’s heaviest set. Friday would be 90 percent of next Monday’s.

Why next Monday’s heaviest set and not this Monday’s? It’s a small detail, but if you’re planning out the cycle in advance, you’re going to know what each heavy day’s going to look like anyway. And I like making this week’s light and medium days a run-up to next week’s heavy day.

I like wave cycling the best, because (especially as you get stronger) the light and medium days help with recovery and still stimulate muscle growth to varying extents. That’s important both for advanced weight trainers and older weight trainers, because both populations need to pay attention to recovery issues.

Frequency

A lot of people might look at the 3-session/week nature of HLM and dismiss it, because they prefer more volume over fewer workout days in the week. I think frequency is important, though. Like everything in this art, it is a variable, but in general, I think that if you’ve got a choice between less frequency and more, and overall volume is the same, more frequency is generally the way to go. The body likes repetition when it’s training to get stronger.

Speaking of that, I’ll write another post soon. I want to discuss how a simple cycle can serve both for neural training and muscle-growth training. Stay tuned.

10-02-07 02:05 AM - Post#355564    

Thank you for this post. This is clearly written and easy to understand. These educational posts help me understand better. I look forward to the next installment.

10-02-07 08:20 PM - Post#355851    

Hey, Steve, I'd like to copy this over into the wiki, too, so we don't lose track of it, okay?

Re: Cycling
10-02-07 11:28 PM - Post#355891    

Good stuff Steve.

Peace ~ Bear

Re: Cycling
10-03-07 02:08 AM - Post#355909    

Quite interesting... please do continue when you can...

2009 Motto: Thinking Positive, Being Positive "Start out easy & don't compete against anyone but yourself." -- Steve Reeves "...work up to the number of repetitions that you feel necessary to do the trick. Don't hold yourself down to any hidebound number of repetitions." -- George F. Jowett "Weight training is successful when you perservere." -- Mike Dayton

Re: Cycling
10-03-07 06:47 AM - Post#355924    

Steve,

Along the lines of "cycles", those who really understand high intensity training (or as I prefer to refer to it as simply "hard work") utilize some type of cycling as well. It's not as formalized or planned out but I don't feel anyone can make progress banging it too hard all the time - it just becomes counter productive.

It's my opinion (based on several conversations with those who were there in the begining and just my own feelings) that Arthur Jones was still "discovering" and "experimenting" and never really took his concept to the "next level". The next level I am referring to is how to implement the level of intensity to the recreational lifter as well as the older trainee. AJ would recommend significant layoffs to recover - which I feel is counterproductive. I believe a smart coach/trainee understands that you don't need to bury yourself into the ground to make progress (progress defined as your own, specific goals - not someone else's) and that you learn how and when to accelerate and when to brake. Basically, using your head to cycle your training.

I have implemented this approach over the last few years and have had good success with the people I work with. It's amazing what little amount of exercise is truly needed if applied intelligently.

Thanks for sharing the cycling ideas.

"Life is a one act play, there are no encores." - Dan Martin PREMIERE PERSONAL FITNESS

Re: Cycling
10-03-07 09:43 AM - Post#355981    

I'm going to continue soon, but right now, I'll respond to your comments, Fred. During one of the conversations I had with Ell Darden about 15 years ago or so, I asked him his opinions about cycling. He didn't think it was necessary to plan such a thing out, even if you do back off every so often. (The big exception to that would be his recommendation of cycling higher-volume -- but still high-intensity -- work for specific bodyparts throughout the year.)

I said, "Well, what about some of Arthur's earlier writings, which advocated making Wednesday a session using lower intensity than on Monday or Friday?"

"That's for when a trainee progresses to the point where his recovery ability can't keep pace with his strength."

I knew that, but I pressed him: "But isn't that a tacit admission that some level of intensity below 100 percent can still yield muscle-building results?"

"Well, those workouts are more to prevent losing gains than making them."

"Which makes it a matter of degree, right? I mean, if 85 percent intensity prevents me from backsliding, that's sort of like progressing, but slower. The thing that keeps me from losing progress is progress. It's just relatively less progress."

There was one of those long pauses you get in a conversation with Darden, and it doesn't mean he's confused. It means he's choosing his words . . . or mulling over your words. Finally, he said, "You can put it that way, yes."

"So, if one day a week is sub-maximal, and you plan that, it's really a kind of cycling of intensity."

"Well, you can say that, but bear in mind Arthur's changed a bit on that recommendation." At that point, we began talking about working out twice a week, rather than three times. It was a direction of Nautilus theory that I embraced for a few years and ultimately rejected; frequency, I began to understand, really is important to continued progress, especially on the neural level. It requires less than 100 percent effort on a high percentage of your workouts, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Laree, I think that'd be cool to Wiki this.

I'll be back soon.

Re: Cycling
10-03-07 12:15 PM - Post#356030    

In my many conversations with Kim Wood he is quick to remind me that "training is more an art than a science" and in keeping with that thinking, a person who trains - especially if they follow a program that has less volume - needs to know themselves well enough to know when to back off and when to go for it.

We have also discussed what really happens if one were to fall just shy of musculare failure - maybe leaving a little in the tank. I've experimented with this and with my clients and you really don't need to over-kill yourself to make progress. Working hard is one thing, working yourself into the ground is another (been there).

I think cycling is fine and I also feel it needs to fit your personality. It would never work for me if done in a formal manner - especially where I am right now in my training career.

Good stuff Steve - keep it coming

"Life is a one act play, there are no encores." - Dan Martin PREMIERE PERSONAL FITNESS

Re: Cycling
10-03-07 12:36 PM - Post#356039    

• Fred Fornicola Said:

Completely agree with this.

Although it takes more time to acquire the self-knowledge, excellent results may be had from sub failure workouts.

Quite often, those that feel you must fail before a set is useful are lazy...meaning they've been unwilling to experiment to find where their "efficiency point" is. If you push beyond the efficiency point to failure...you're guaranteed of reaching the efficiency point every time. You're also guaranteed that your training risk factors will rise.

You need to find the failure point every now and then...but it needn't be a consistent practice.

Wicked

"I'm in good shape for the shape I'm in." "Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me." John 14:6

Re: Cycling
10-03-07 12:47 PM - Post#356044    

• Quote:

Agreed WW

"Life is a one act play, there are no encores." - Dan Martin PREMIERE PERSONAL FITNESS

Re: Cycling
10-03-07 01:30 PM - Post#356061    

• Wicked Willie Said:

Yep. One of my favorite methodologies is to start with a submaximal weight and add five pounds a workout until I do hit failure. At that point, it's time to start over with either a (hopefully higher) submaximal weight or with a different exercise.

The more I eat and the heavier I train, the better my genetics get. If you're not paraplegic and not squatting, please kick your own ass for me." "Do you really think that the reason most guys don't have big arms is purely because of a lack of doing curls?" --Alwyn Cosgrove "There is only one gram of carbs in STFD and no carbs at all in STFU." --Byron Chandler "Use meaningful loads to achieve results." --Big Vic http://www.stoneagefitnessconcepts.com

10-03-07 01:40 PM - Post#356064    

In a seminar I went to last weekend, Dr. Len Kravitz, who studies this stuff in a university setting, was pretty giddy over what he called "undulating periodization."

In comparisons between traditional periodization (hypertrophy 2-3 weeks, strength/hypertrophy 2-3 weeks, strength 2-3 weeks, transition/recover 1-2 weeks), mixed methods periodization day to day, weekly, bi-weekly or monthly variation using a variety of exercises, order of exercises, rest between sets and time under load, and undulating periodization day to day variation of intensity program wherein the rep schemes were altered daily, ie 3-5 reps, then 8-10 reps, then 12-15 reps, all three modes provided nearly identical endurance results.

The undulating periodization resulted in 30-40% greater strength increases across the board. (They tested a few different exercises.)

I believe this is the article that best describes the study: Circuit vs periodized resistance training.

10-03-07 03:09 PM - Post#356097    

Thanks Laree for the link, but TBH, stuff like that has always I've always felt (and it's getting worse as I age) that if I had to figure all that stuff out and have everything "predicted" for me then it wouldn't be any fun - regardless of the outcome.

What's "best" is what you'll do on a consistent basis and enjoy doing and hopefully, is good for you as well. Too often people train a certain way even if they don't enjoy it or it's not good for their health to achieve a certain goal - which, at times can be counterproductive to their overall well-being.

I disagree with the hypertrophy/endurance/pow er thing as well. I feel that exercise, done right, can make anyone stronger and more fit than they were before.

"Life is a one act play, there are no encores." - Dan Martin PREMIERE PERSONAL FITNESS

10-03-07 03:38 PM - Post#356113    

• Fred Fornicola Said:

Yes.

10-03-07 03:46 PM - Post#356120    

• Steve Wedan Said:

Yes, but.

Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand states that you improve the fitness qualities you train. You won't improve your 1RM nearly as much with sets of 10 as you will with doubles and triples, and you won't improve your strength endurance nearly as much with long rests between efforts as you will short rests. Likewise, you won't generate much hypertrophy without sufficient weekly volume.

The more I eat and the heavier I train, the better my genetics get. If you're not paraplegic and not squatting, please kick your own ass for me." "Do you really think that the reason most guys don't have big arms is purely because of a lack of doing curls?" --Alwyn Cosgrove "There is only one gram of carbs in STFD and no carbs at all in STFU." --Byron Chandler "Use meaningful loads to achieve results." --Big Vic http://www.stoneagefitnessconcepts.com

10-03-07 04:05 PM - Post#356132    

Chris,

Jones argued the above point, stating for example that if someone's 10 rep max went up their 1RM would increase accordingly. Bulletin 1 - ch 15. I agree with his statement and yours as well because I think that you are right that someone would need to "specialize" to improve on their 1RM for instance but that's to hone in on the skill set in this case. What I am referring to is that high repetitions for example aren't for "endurance" per se - I've seen people gain some good muscle size and strength from performing reps in the 20's, 30's nd higher (look at Tom Platz in his day with 50 rep squats) and lower reps aren't just for bulk/hypertrophy/ strength.

And while we're at it, I feel strength is a relative term that is very subjective.

"Life is a one act play, there are no encores." - Dan Martin PREMIERE PERSONAL FITNESS

10-03-07 04:31 PM - Post#356139    

Training the skill of expressing limit strength is a large part of what I'm talking about, but it's not everything. Obviously, if you increase the weight you can do 10 reps with, you've gotten stronger, and if you increase the weight you can do 1 rep with, you should be able to handle more for 10, but from what I've seen in the gym, there isn't a linear correlation between increases in 10RM and increases in 1RM. I understand the theory as Jones put it (and in theory, Jones is 100% correct), but it's more complicated when the rubber meets the road.

As always, trying to separate strength from the expression of strength is a bear and a half.

And I do agree that it's overly reductive to say 1-5 reps builds "strength," 8-12 "hypertrophy," and 15+ "endurance."

The more I eat and the heavier I train, the better my genetics get. If you're not paraplegic and not squatting, please kick your own ass for me." "Do you really think that the reason most guys don't have big arms is purely because of a lack of doing curls?" --Alwyn Cosgrove "There is only one gram of carbs in STFD and no carbs at all in STFU." --Byron Chandler "Use meaningful loads to achieve results." --Big Vic http://www.stoneagefitnessconcepts.com

10-03-07 08:21 PM - Post#356248    

• Laree Said:

Chris, this is pretty much what you've been doing for most of the past year or so, right?

Now, you usually do each exercise three days a week. How does it work in a power routine where an exercise is done only once a week? That is, would one still progress more efficiently using the varied rep scheme over a three week period than with three consecutive weeks of low reps?

(BTW, I don't know any power lifters who train using 10-15 reps on their primary movements, and most don't go above 8-10 reps even on their assistance exercises.)

Be strong. Be in shape. Be a man among men, regardless of your age or circumstances.

Cycling
10-03-07 08:38 PM - Post#356254    

• AAnnunz Said:

Yep. It's a fun way to train.

• AAnnunz Said:

Probably not. Still, I'd recommend even for these guys something like Westside's dynamic effort day or Westside for Skinny Bastards's repetition effort day as a lighter, ideally higher rep, second training day later in the week. Even though plenty of people who are stronger than I'll ever be train the major lifts just once a week, I don't think it's optimal.

• AAnnunz Said:

And part of me says that they are likely better off for it, at least on the primary movements. That said, the Westside guys will occasionally take their assistance work north of 20 reps (as in one-arm DB presses, Dimel deadlifts, and the infamous "bench press times a billion" workout). It's not necessarily a planned undulation, but some of the best in the world do indeed work out in a way with material similarities.

In fact, if you consider Dave Tate's distillation of Conjugate Periodization--train everything all the time--you get the sense that they believe any rep range that has value has value in at least part of almost every workout.

The more I eat and the heavier I train, the better my genetics get. If you're not paraplegic and not squatting, please kick your own ass for me." "Do you really think that the reason most guys don't have big arms is purely because of a lack of doing curls?" --Alwyn Cosgrove "There is only one gram of carbs in STFD and no carbs at all in STFU." --Byron Chandler "Use meaningful loads to achieve results." --Big Vic http://www.stoneagefitnessconcepts.com

Edited by Chris McClinch on 10-03-07 08:39 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

Cycling
10-03-07 09:49 PM - Post#356286    

In my experience intensity really is subjective, there shouldn’t be any set rules on how to train as life in general is so random, my feeling is you train as hard as possible and as best you can, if you listen to yourself it does fall into place without the need for rigid cycling, dieting measures.
The key is knowing your own abilities and not sabotaging that by comparing yourself with others, in the sense that He’s bigger and he trains differently.

I’ve been training the same way using the same basic movements for about 10years in what I would term hard training, for me it’s a personal thing I can’t explain what motivates me to work as hard as I can but it keeps me coming back, really haven’t got the size to show for it and it sometimes scares me to think that I wouldn’t be able to train.

Just my thoughts, possibly not really relevant but it sparked something.

Nice legs-shame about the face

10-03-07 11:32 PM - Post#356312    

• Chris McClinch Said:

It would be more accurate to say Jones's hypothesis is logically consistent. This may seem pedantic but it's an important.

This is fine as long as it's not confused with science. Science is far from perfect but I'll take it over art for understanding the natural world every day.

I have said this before, some people have no taste for the laws of science, but unlike the laws of man and God, you don't see many people running around viloating the laws of science.

The most important test a lifter has to pass is the test of time. -Jon Cole

10-03-07 11:36 PM - Post#356314    

"you don't see many people running around viloating the laws of science."
Well, usually not for long anyway.

What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach.

10-04-07 06:08 AM - Post#356356    

Well stated, Andrew

"Life is a one act play, there are no encores." - Dan Martin PREMIERE PERSONAL FITNESS

More on (not moron) cycling
10-04-07 10:53 AM - Post#356402    

Okay, here’s the foundation of the program. This is the neural piece.

Getting strong is accomplished partly by getting a better neural connection to your muscles and partly by getting bigger muscles. The neural connection is more than just skill, though skill is probably its biggest component. It’s increasing what Arthur Jones called neurological efficiency. Jones said that NE was fixed at birth (actually, at conception). He said most people have around 30 percent NE, meaning that 3 muscle fibers out of 10 are contracted at any single moment during a maximal effort. On either end of a bell curve, you’ve got “genetic freaks,” who have 50 percent NE, like Paul Anderson and Casey Viator, and “motor morons,” who have only 10 percent NE.

The history of the strength sports seems to contradict Jones, though, concerning the fixed nature of neurological efficiency. Weightlifters are able to get stronger and stronger over a period of years without leaving their weight classes, for example. Beyond questions of drugs and motivation, there appears to be a good case for NE improving with the right kind of training.

Tension and strength

So, first, what is the right kind of training to get stronger on the neural level? Neural training is the same thing as training for high levels of muscular tension. Such tension is the end result of that kind of training. So, the statement we can work with is: Acquire the skill to generate more tension.

Like any skill, this takes repetition. You don’t learn to play the guitar like Eric Clapton overnight, and you don’t learn how to lift a large barbell over your head overnight, either. Both involve learning and practicing a set of smaller skills. In the latter case, they’re the skills involved in creating more and more muscular tension.

The five key conditions for training these skills, creating high levels of muscular tension, are:

1) moving slowly
2) consciously maximizing muscular tension, as though you’re posing
3) using heavy weights most of the time
4) minimizing fatigue
5) using specific techniques
a. power breathing
b. hyperirradiation
c. pre-tension
d. successive induction

Slow motion

Force/tension drops off rapidly when velocity increases. When you have to deal with resistance over several seconds, rather than for a fraction of one second, you just get better overload. Lifting heavy weights will always trump throwing things for building strength. One reason is because to get sufficient overload, you need resistance greater than what you get in something you can throw.

Arm-wrestlers and powerlifters are good examples of athletes who move slowly and get very, very strong. There are exceptions to this slow-speed rule, but the general principle holds. (I’m not talking about super-slow training here, by the way.)

Does this mean you’ll slow down for some other sport you’re engaged in? Not necessarily. I think the important thing to do in such cases is not to make strength training the main thing you do (it doesn’t take long, and, done right, it doesn’t exhaust you, so this shouldn’t present a problem). Spend most of your time training the fast thing you do. Keep those skills highly honed. The small investment of time using slow, heavy weights won’t, in my opinion, take away from the fast skills you work on at other times.

Maximizing tension

Even if you’re using a light weight, it’s good practice to handle it as though it weighs a lot, if you’re aiming at training yourself to create high muscular tension. Tense the muscles on purpose. You’re using dynamic tension, which can build a lot of neural strength.

Using heavy weights

We’re talking about the 85-95 percent range of your 1RM. There are at least three reasons for using heavy weights.

One, you build strength in the connective tissues and joints. An added benefit is the effect using heavy weights has on inhibiting your mechanoreceptors, the governors of your body’s strength. Those guys say “okay” to your using heavy weights, once they’re used to them through repetition.

Two, you need to experience real, live resistance to gain skill at creating high tension levels in your muscles. Electrical and chemical signals in your body are generated in response to heavy resistance, and experiencing that on a regular basis builds the skill we’re talking about.

And three, Henneman’s Size Principle states that motor units are generally recruited in order of smallest to largest (fewest fibers to most fibers, as well as slowest-contraction to fastest-contraction fibers) as contraction increases. And this is in response to greater and greater resistance.

You might see that these three reasons overlap. Regardless, they build a strong case for using heavy weights when you’re training for the skill of strength.

Minimizing fatigue

Fatigue is your friend when you’re training for size, and we’ll get to that. For the neural part of the equation, though, it’s your enemy. Don’t worry; there’s a simple way of both avoiding it and using it in the same workout, and that’s coming up.

In a separate post, I’ll talk about minimizing fatigue.

Using specific techniques

Power breathing: Hold your breath as the weight’s coming down and going back up again, until the last part of the concentric, when you blow roughly half of it out. Or blow it out after the rep is completed. If, for some reason, you’ve been advised not to hold your breath under the load of a barbell, try this alternative: Instead of holding your breath, blow out through pursed lips at the beginning of the concentric and whoosh it out hard on the last part. Don’t completely empty the lungs; keep enough air in there to stabilize the spine. In other words, keep abdominal pressure high. Make your ab wall hard but not bulgy.

Hyperirradiation, in a nutshell: HI is purposeful tensing of muscles other than the ones directly responsible for the task you’re doing. Although we’re really talking about tensing the whole body during any one lift, there are three key points: the grip, the abs, and the glutes. If you grip the bar as if to squeeze juice out of it (on upper body drills) and you make a shield of your ab wall and you mentally try to grip a coin with your butt muscles, you’ll generate more strength in your lift. There’s a big neural stimulus sent to your working muscles when you simultaneously tense the ones here. As an added benefit, you create a safer foundation for exercising, preventing hyperflexion or hyperextension in your joints and properly aligning your body in the process.

Pre-tension: Stay tight. Keep in mind the high correlation between tension and strength. Tensing up before unracking the bar has a strong effect on creating tension and strength.

This might be one reason why walk-outs are so effective. If you load a squat bar with weights you can’t actually squat with, unrack it and walk backward a step or two, as though you’re going to squat, and then, after standing there a sec, walking back and re-racking it, your squat workout a few minutes later can noticeably improve. Part of that is psychological: You’re less scared now. But I think you’ve also disinhibited a bunch of your neural protective mechanisms, too.

Successive induction: What this means is when you’re doing the negative part of a press, for example, you’re not just lowering the weight (or dropping it). You’re actively pulling it down with your biceps and lats, as though doing a pulldown. This is actually an extension of pre-tension. You start by tensing before unracking; you finish by pulling down on the bar during the eccentric contraction with the muscles that oppose those that do the concentric part. The power of this technique probably has to do with the body saying to itself, “Hey, I don’t have to protect this guy by inhibiting his power; he’s protecting himself.”

Again, there’s a safety windfall: Your joints are stabilized way beyond what they’d be if you made it a habit to drop the bar on the eccentric or swing the bar up and down. A lot of us old-timers have joint problems. Maybe the young turks among us won’t be dazzled by the safety promises of a lot of this material, but if they see immediate and long-term strength gains by following the principles, they’ll appreciate the safety aspect in the years to come.

Your strength dance is your safety dance. :0)

More to come

I feel like I’m writing a series of articles. I hope it’s not off-putting for you guys. I’m no guru. I’m just passing along bits of stuff I’m learning on my journey. The next post will cover minimizing fatigue in neural training, but I swear to you the very next post will get to the size-building part of this equation. I wanted to go through neural training first, because it really is foundational.




Edited by Steve Wedan on 10-04-07 10:57 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

Re: More on (not moron) cycling
10-04-07 11:06 AM - Post#356404    

Put-off? No way...Thanks for taking the time to write and post. Very educational.

I wish the title were different. Not a big fan of cycling (riding type) and almost didn't open the thread.

Would have been my loss...

Re: More on (not moron) cycling
10-04-07 11:33 AM - Post#356419    

• RonL Said:

Periodization was a term that came to my attention years after cycling did. I'm a creature of habit, I guess; I've always preferred the latter term. Plus, periodization takes so long to type. . . .

Re: More on (not moron) cycling
10-04-07 11:47 AM - Post#356427    

Great stuff Steve! Thank you.


Tim

10-04-07 12:17 PM - Post#356436    

Whew! Thanks, Steve, and everyone.

Steve, I think this is more blog material than it is wiki (or both, actually)... more people will see it that way. If that's okay with you, that's what I'll do with it when you let me know you're done... er, tired... out of time... need to get back to work...

Cycling
10-04-07 01:46 PM - Post#356475    

Good stuff Steve. I have some small divergences here and there but overall great.

• Quote:

Actually I think Jones had this essentially right. (I forgive you for making me say that.) I don't know what the actual percentages are and I don't think anyone does, but the point is I think people are basically preprogrammed with an upper limit for NE. They'll get pretty close to this limit with not much NE training.

This is seen time and again by Westsiders. Adding speed work into the mix has dramatic results for people that have great strength (ability to generate tension) but poor recruitment (NE). But time and again, lifters find that before long they are as fast as they are going to get. You see a lot of lifters that don't do speed work at all times now.

So how do you explain people getting stronger in the same weight class? Well first off I'll point out that you really see a lot of people go up weight classes. Watch the career of, say, Ed Coan. Incredible at 165 (as a kid) then 181 as a junior then 198 then 220 then 242. I may be ust drawing a blank but how many elite lifters add substantially without gaining weight?

Elite lifters can also gain strength and stay in the same weight class by improving the skills, and this is a big thing. Technique of course is the obvious example and a huge factor but I think there are more subtle factors. Intramuscular coordination and timing are subtle higher level skills that make a huge difference.

As such I believe you are on with repetition being key to learning these higher level skills, but you'd be a little out on a limb claiming that repetition is the key to improving a fundamental skill such as NE.

I also think that great lifters over time make their body composition more efficient and specialized for lifting. By an efficient body comp, I don't just mean coming to weigh ins leaner and drier. I mean a more specialized and efficient distribution of muscle.

A weightlifter, for example, may gain a little size in the hamstrings and erectors and lose some in the biceps and pectorals. Some lifters will suffer as they become more specialized and lose their broader base of fitness, they will have joint problems from muscular imbalances, their work capacity will suffer, etc. and ultimately this can cap their advancement. But the great ones will continue to thrive - they are the ones really made for their sport.

The most important test a lifter has to pass is the test of time. -Jon Cole

Edited by ccrow on 10-04-07 01:53 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

Re: Cycling
10-04-07 01:57 PM - Post#356481    

Good food for thought. This adds a lot. Thanks, Byron.

10-04-07 01:58 PM - Post#356482    

• Laree Said:

Yeah, sure. I've got maybe two more posts to go, not counting little stuff in between.

10-04-07 02:08 PM - Post#356485    

• Quote:

I already touched on this and I don't want to rag on it but there are some counterexamples that can't be discounted here.

There are numerous examples of elite powerlifters coming to Westside to train and making rapid progress after adding speed work. Many powerlifters get very strong but fail to develop great NE training with heavy weights at slow speeds. In Westside terms, all max-effort work and no dynamic-effort work. Adding dynamic effort work rapidly improves their strength.

Lots of olympic weightlifters never deadlift, but can deadlift a lot. Bill Starr has a well known article about improving your deadlift without deadlifting - by cleaning. Cleans are dynamic (fast) and concentric-only.

I have some half baked thoughts of my own here. You can develop the ability to generate great tension by developing the right kind of muscle mass. Obviously not the sacromeric bloat that pumping routines build up but increasing the amount of contractile protein in the muscle, the horsepower part of the muscle.

Even if your neural efficiency is poor, if you get big enough, you get real real strong. Not strong for your size, but strong period. Paul Anderson may be a good example of a nothing special NE and huge size. He never snatched body weight. I don't think he did any one armed chins.

The most important test a lifter has to pass is the test of time. -Jon Cole

10-04-07 02:27 PM - Post#356494    

I think the way I'd address what you're saying here is for me to state that the approach Pavel T recommends is a way to increase the neural aspect of strength training, not the way. I'm not a scientist, so I can't solve the riddle myself.

To round out the picture a little, I'll also point out that Pavel is the world's biggest promoter of a tool that is often used in fast ways, the kettlebell. I don't think that detracts from his argument at all, but maybe there are pieces of the puzzle that his sources didn't take into account. Who knows?

Take what I'm writing here not as a manifesto of the only way to build strength but as a big, fat book report. Someone asked about cycling in another thread, and it opened up a subject I'm interested in: not just cycling but the whole Tsatsouline approach to strength training.

10-04-07 02:39 PM - Post#356497    

By the way, after reading about Ed Fox's new set of wheels, I'm dying to tell folks about my new set. It's a Mazda MX-5 Miata Grand Touring.

I'm going to try to get pictures made soon.

Right now, it's in the parking lot, about a hundred yards away. It's mid-day, hours from when I last drove it, hours from when I'll drive it again.

I miss it. *sniff*

10-04-07 02:45 PM - Post#356500    

I'm looking forward to discussing it in just that context, seeing which of Pavel's ideas hold water and which don't. This is how I like to separate the wheat from the chaff.

What were Pavel's sources? Seriously I don't know. I think (understandably) marketing embellishments have been sprinkled liberally into his books. Pavel and Louie probably share a lot of the same sources from the old CCCP but I am more interested in the results they get from what they are doing with their own systems.

I don't know if I'm a scientist but I do try to be scientific. Looking through these things to try to understand the underlying mechanisms and reconcile theory and practice - that's how I think we improve.

The most important test a lifter has to pass is the test of time. -Jon Cole

10-04-07 02:49 PM - Post#356503    

Thanks Steve!

10-04-07 06:20 PM - Post#356570    

I think Kim Wood - the now retired strength coach who spent 28 years with the Cincinnati Bengal's, worked for Arthur Jones and Nautilus and was one of the original principle's for Hammer Strength sums up training pretty well for me when he says that training, above all is "an art more than a science". Science can give direction but it's the "doing" that matters most and what you discover from it as a trainee and as an individual.

"Life is a one act play, there are no encores." - Dan Martin PREMIERE PERSONAL FITNESS

10-04-07 07:50 PM - Post#356605    

Thanks, Steve. This is a really good book report.

Be strong. Be in shape. Be a man among men, regardless of your age or circumstances.

10-04-07 08:13 PM - Post#356618    

I do apprediate all of the science you guys talk about. The science I used to get the numbers and size I set for myself early in my lifting career which I met and exceeded was hard work. I just kept adding plates, and pushing. Would I have gotten stronger and bigger doing it your way? No I don't think so. I do believe I met my genetic potential.

It don't matter

10-04-07 08:35 PM - Post#356626    

• cajinjohn Said:

Me, too. Honestly, I rarely use it, but I love it that you guy know it, and once in a while it sinks thru the skull and I accidentally *do* use it.

10-04-07 09:54 PM - Post#356651    

Thank you Steve.

10-05-07 12:29 AM - Post#356696    

Thanks, this is starting to make sense to me. I read some other stuff along these lines but I didn't get the point. last month I was a 155lb guy trying to bench 200lbs. I got up to 195 but that was it, no gains after that. I started doing flys and dips instead. I'm gonna give this a shot.

10-05-07 09:24 AM - Post#356783    

• Laree Said:

You put yourself down too much. Seriously.

I've got a lot of respect for your intellect, as evidenced in your writing.

Cycling
10-05-07 02:42 PM - Post#356944    

• Laree Said:

Same with me, but I did try hyperirradiation and pretension today while doing bench presses. Took a bit more concentration than I'm used to (except for the butt squeeze, which I practised daily in the showers while incarcerated...for self defense), but I think keeping everything tight might not only help improve strength, but reduce the potential for injury as well.

Be strong. Be in shape. Be a man among men, regardless of your age or circumstances.

Minimizing fatigue in neural training, part 1
10-05-07 04:43 PM - Post#356971    

Okay, let’s see how much I can put down in the next 45 minutes. We’re talking about minimizing fatigue. Why do this? Because, as Pavel puts it,

“Fatigue and strength/tension are mutually exclusive! Metabolic waste products like lactic acid hamper further powerful contractions. Cardiovascular insufficiency forces you to prematurely terminate your set. Mental fatigue from doing too many reps or sets prevents you from generating required intensity. The ‘communication lines’ between your brain and your muscles get overworked and no longer conduct your orders effectively.” - p 18, Power to the People!

Those of you weaned on the writings of Arthur Jones and Ell Darden will see what looks like a big departure of opinion here. It starts with definitions, specifically of the term intensity. For Jones, it was perceived effort. For Pavel and the researchers he cites, it’s percentage of 1RM. This is something I brought up with Darden a long time ago. First of all, percentage of 1RM is much more friendly to accurate measurement than is perceived effort, and measurement is foundational to science. Perceived effort changes daily and even hourly. One-rep max also changes, but it’s not as subject to emotional and psychological states as is the perception of effort.

I asked Darden about something he wrote in one of his books, a variation on a theme running through just about everything he’s written. My question concerned what Jones called “the rush factor.” I understood its role in metabolic conditioning, but I questioned its efficacy in creating strength gains. I pointed out the importance of overload, one of the very principles Darden himself said was essential for effective strength training (the other being progression). I asked him how a person could overload in a given exercise when he’s gasping for air after doing several exercises full-bore and back-to-back. He said that it didn’t matter that a person could only press, say, 80 pounds for 8 in the middle of this fast-paced workout, when normally he could do 100 for 8. What mattered was that he hit failure with that 80.

Then he added, “Besides, you’re going to meet and exceed your old numbers soon enough.” He offered, I should add, abundant proof, including the results of the West Point study in 1975, in which the participating members of the football team really did exceed their old PRs by a long shot, and they did this working out with fifteen seconds max between exercises.

Another apparent wrinkle here is that Pavel himself cites a couple of studies in his first kettlebell book, showing how the use of moderate poundages in the competitive KB lifts yielded tremendous performance results. In a 1983 (I think) study, comparing a KB-only group with a control group using more traditional exercises, the KB guys outperformed the control group in the very exercises the control group had been working on the whole time.

So, is Pavel contradicting himself, and has Arthur Jones been right all along? Well, the contradiction is only apparent. The KB observations and the Nautilus studies noted improvements in muscular strength. Growth in that area has a neural component (through motor skill refinement), but the improvement is essentially made through growth of muscle. On the continuum that joins strength-through-purely-n eural-means and strength-through-growth-o f-tissue, neural strength training really does prefer a low-fatigue environment. It might even require it.

The advantages of working for metabolic conditioning (something we can talk about at another time) include physical improvement across the board (e.g., various types of strength, systemic endurance, and local muscular endurance). The advantages of a slower, low-fatigue approach to strength include being able to stick with a routine that doesn’t threaten to kill you every time you follow it.

I’ll be back.



Edited by Steve Wedan on 10-05-07 04:44 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

Re: More on (not moron) cycling
10-05-07 05:15 PM - Post#356979    

• Steve Wedan Said:

Absolutely. Most guys continue to get stronger long after their muscles stop growing.

Peace ~ Bear

Re: More on (not moron) cycling
10-09-07 02:22 PM - Post#358211    

Couple of days late, here. Sorry about that. I had a sudden outside job pop up, and I didn’t want to turn it down.

I left some of you a little confused last time, as evidenced by a couple of PMs I got in response. I apologize. I was trying to lay some groundwork and writing too fast. Now, I’ll get to the promised nuts and bolts of minimizing fatigue in order to build neural strength.

Part of the challenge of reporting on Power to the People! is the fact that it’s not a well-organized book. It jumps around a bit. But Pavel does organize some things well, and this is one of them. He lists 5 ways to minimize “various types of fatigue.” Here they are.

1. Keep your reps low

Pavel advises reps in the same range Bill Starr does, up to 6. Both simplify by saying, “Five.” Although he spells out why he likes low reps better in other writings, essentially it’s for a couple of reasons:

a. You don’t exhaust the stabilizer muscles, which -- in a high-rep set -- tend to give out before prime movers, making an exercise more dangerous. This was a point made by a chiropractor friend who was also a muscle-head way back in the early 1990s. When I made mention of 20-rep squats, he said, “I wouldn’t do more than 10, and even that’s high.” His reasoning was that the lower back muscles, which are held in isometric contraction during the set, fatigue faster than the muscles of the thighs -- and that they tire unevenly. So, when one side of your spinal erectors begins to fail before the other, your spine begins to tilt. This is dangerous under a heavy load. For his part, Pavel recognizes the usefulness of 20-rep squats but says not to stay on such a routine for long.

b. Doing five reps prevents the possibility of overdoing sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Pavel calls such growth fake. While some of such growth will occur, especially in the Bear-style training I’ll get to, myofibrillar growth is responsible for the greatest growth. Why? Because Bear-style training emphasizes heavy weights and low reps, even while going for a pump.

2. Keep rest intervals up around 3-5 minutes

ATP stores are depleted during exercise, and, while short rest periods are good for creating a cumulative breakdown of muscle tissue, longer ones are better for doing consistently heavy work for several sets of an exercise.

3. Keep the number of sets low

Fatigue will eventually set in, even when your reps are low and your rest intervals are longish. So, for neural strength training, don’t do a high volume of work. Hit it fairly hard and heavy, and then go home. The PTP! template involves two work sets per exercise: The first one conforms to the overall cycle, and the second one is 90 percent of that first set.

Pavel’s caveat is that such a percentage is not precise. Just take some plates off and do a second set. Bam, that’s it.

4. Pause and relax between reps

This is something I remember reading Larry Scott did when working his biceps. Each rep was its own thing: He’d rest for a moment at the top of preacher bench curls before lowering the weight for another rep. That short rest allows you to “generate higher values of muscular tension” as your set progresses. The ATP thing mentioned above is a big reason why.

5. Lift frequently but not too frequently

Tsatsouline likens exercising to practicing. And practicing any skill requires repetition. He cites numerous studies and lots of historical examples for practically everything he writes, and for this principle, he tells about Bob Peoples, the great deadlifter, who practiced his pet lift 4 to 5 times a week. You can be assured that these sessions were heavy but not intense the way Arthur Jones described intense. Peoples didn’t carry a lot of muscle, and his training style shows one reason why. He didn’t try to exhaust muscle; he just practiced lifting progressively heavier weights.

Okay, coming up is how Pavel combines neural training with higher volume, fatigue-oriented work to yield an effective size-building approach.

10-09-07 02:55 PM - Post#358229    

Thanks Steve, great stuff...

10-09-07 05:34 PM - Post#358292    

Whew! Thanks, Steve.

Cycling
10-09-07 06:36 PM - Post#358316    

Wow, Steve, those few paragraphs pretty much laid out 75% of the mistakes I've made during 46 years of training...mostly attempting to achieve the fake hypertrophy Pavel refers to. How quickly lost!

Two personal experiences to back up your statments:
1. My worst lower back injury occurred after staying on a 20-rep squat protocol for too long.
2. After staying away from the barbell row for the better part of a year (again, due to lower back issues), I've been able to resume the exercise without trauma by doing it Pendlay style and resting (i.e., pausing/resetting) while the weight is on the floor.

Great stuff. Can't wait for the next installment.

Be strong. Be in shape. Be a man among men, regardless of your age or circumstances.