Dan John
Total Posts: 12292
|
02-07-21 09:06 AM - Post#907553
His exasperation is on point; I found myself laughing as I read this:
https://www.ironcompany.com/blog/once-week-streng th-training/
Daniel John
Just handing down what I was handed down...
Make a Difference.
Live. Love. Laugh.
Balance work, rest, play and pray (enjoy beauty and solitude)
Sleep soundly. Drink Water. Eat veggies and protein. Walk.
Wear your seat belt. Don’t smoke. Floss your teeth.
Put weights overhead. Pick weights off the floor. Carry weights.
Reread great books. Say thank you |
|
Ricky01
Total Posts: 709
|
Having not read much from Marty before - I wonder if he has run the super slow protocol once a week himself?
Also, has he run what he would class as a conventional strength training programme with a once a week setup to compare?
Not picking faults with the article, just curious.
I can see the frustration if an article or programme called for 'only' a specific set of equipment eg Nautilus machines - i don't however have an issue with the idea of slow, controlled and removing momentum/bounce etc.
In these crazy times, an 'at home' programme based around bodyweight/bands//weights (if you have them at home) prioritising controlled movement and watching the clock rather than the rep count .... and done on a slightly less frequent basis (it's all about what you can recover from), should be looked into and might be just what a lot of people need/could benefit from.
Just my thoughts.
Richard
Edited by Ricky01 on 02-07-21 10:42 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Adam S
Total Posts: 629
|
Also, has he run what he would class as a conventional strength training programme with a once a week setup to compare?
Richard
At the end of the post, Gallagher refers to the once-a-week program that he runs. You can look it up on the web; he calls it "Raw." Gallagher has pushed working each major movement once a week for years. The Raw program takes it a step further by having just one total body workout per week. So Marty has a baseline of his own for comparison. I should add that he has long been something of a high-intensity, low volume guy himself, with many of his programs similar to the HIT style of Dorian Yates, featuring a few progressive warmup sets and then one all-out top set.
What amazes me about "strength-research" is the extent to which it seems to have no purpose but serving the biases of the people conducting the research. So you have HIT guys, like James Steele (one of the authors of the study referred to in the Outside article), Ralph Carpinelli, and Wayne Westcott, whose results always seem to vindicate HIT protocols, like Super Slow. Then you have the people like Schoenfeld and the NCSA people, whose work seems to be tailored to support volume training. You see a similar phenomenon in the research on high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity, continuous training. (My favorite example was the recent, much publicized study that allegedly showed the superiority of the Norwegian 4x4 interval method. At least that's what the researchers concluded. Their data was more equivocal.) Anyway, exercise training research exemplifies the worst characteristics that the science deniers seem to think characterize ALL sciences. Nevertheless, the aerobic exercise research seems to be more objective than the strength training research, if only because it has medical implications, so it can't be entirely a feel-good (and maybe tenure) opportunity for the researchers. As for strength research, it's generally best ignored.
| Why are you squatting in the curl rack? |
|
iPood
Total Posts: 2360
|
02-07-21 11:45 AM - Post#907562
Far from be ideal, but even a single Easy Strength (which relies on high frequency to optimally work) training session a week would benefit most sedentary people.
My own parents experienced GREAT progress while doing a modified DMPM once a week. And it was the getaway program to end up doing more substantial things (like exercising daily, no matter what).
"I think we often spend too much time focusing on max fitness
and not nearly enough on maintaining our minimums.
It seems we need to think sustainable rather than obtainable.
Meaning whatever we do today, we can do it again tomorrow.
Never taking so much from ourselves that we can't."
Dan Martin |
|
Jordan D
Total Posts: 771
|
Anyway, exercise training research exemplifies the worst characteristics that the science deniers seem to think characterize ALL sciences. Nevertheless, the aerobic exercise research seems to be more objective than the strength training research, if only because it has medical implications, so it can't be entirely a feel-good (and maybe tenure) opportunity for the researchers. As for strength research, it's generally best ignored.
Very well said.
Having not read much from Marty before - I wonder if he has run the super slow protocol once a week himself?
Also, has he run what he would class as a conventional strength training programme with a once a week setup to compare?
You should read Marty. I can't imagine anyone's written more in the last four decades about the entire breadth of the strength training field, and I also can't imagine anyone on the planet has coached more people to success, from rank beginners to the greatest world champions, with minimalist training.
|
Ricky01
Total Posts: 709
|
Having not read much from Marty before - I wonder if he has run the super slow protocol once a week himself?
Also, has he run what he would class as a conventional strength training programme with a once a week setup to compare?
You should read Marty. I can't imagine anyone's written more in the last four decades about the entire breadth of the strength training field, and I also can't imagine anyone on the planet has coached more people to success, from rank beginners to the greatest world champions, with minimalist training.
With your recommendation I will endeavour to look up more of his work.
Thanks
Richard
|
Neander
Total Posts: 7755
|
02-08-21 02:35 AM - Post#907586
You had me at the mention of laughter.
Life's too short to worry about longevity.
|
|
Neander
Total Posts: 7755
|
There. Real well written and well worth reading.
Isn't that double-back to the exploding head sweet!
Wow. A resistance training program that stops working. Thank God for science pointing that out!
One of my favorite things about free weights is the way an exercise movement (not lift) can be tailored in an almost infinite number or ways in order to better fit each individual's body. Not to mention the berzillion (and maybe one more, there's always one more) ways they can be tweaked to slightly and in some instances greatly change the effect of the exercise.
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens indeed.
Good article!
Life's too short to worry about longevity.
|
Edited by Neander on 02-08-21 03:07 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
D Berta
Total Posts: 141
|
First off, I would select exercise machines over free weight equipment: if the goal is lesser results, choose machines that eliminate the 3rd dimension of tension. The 3rd dimension of tension is the need to control side-to-side movement. Exercise machines have frozen grooves that allow the trainee to allot 100% of their available strength to either pushing or pulling. Since there is no need to control sway, there is no need for muscle stabilizers to fire.
As I continue to age and try to squeeze what I can our of limited training time, I appreciate more and more the skill of strength. Being able to squeeze and come out of the hole on a squat for instance.
Dan, you have has mentioned occasionally the value in training younger athletes via other sports. They can go out into another sport where a certain skill might be better emphasized and learn the basics of that skill to bring back to their main sport. I have to wonder if this is not a great way to describe the magic of strength training. Strength as a skill. A non-strength athlete is learning through this process to apply themselves through larger and larger loads relative to their size. The way maxes become harder over time, ie: a 200# max is not the same as a 600# max.
Yes load can up over many years and the strongest and fastest want to get strong and faster. At some point they have enough of this skill, whatever enough is for their goals.
This is also why advanced bodyweight progressions probably does not make sense at some point. Yes you can master weird balance tricks, you may not actually be practicing the skill of strength that most people need.
|
Dan John
Total Posts: 12292
|
02-08-21 07:06 PM - Post#907610
D Berta,
Expand this and make it an article...EXACTLY!!
Daniel John
Just handing down what I was handed down...
Make a Difference.
Live. Love. Laugh.
Balance work, rest, play and pray (enjoy beauty and solitude)
Sleep soundly. Drink Water. Eat veggies and protein. Walk.
Wear your seat belt. Don’t smoke. Floss your teeth.
Put weights overhead. Pick weights off the floor. Carry weights.
Reread great books. Say thank you |
|
Browser
Total Posts: 507
|
I'm not in the 'everyone should train with barbells' camp. Not everyone is, or wants to be, a meathead. This madness ain't for everybody.
I would go so far as to say that the only people who should train with barbells are collision sports athletes, strength athletes (like people who actually compete in a strength sport), and people who just enjoy it. Normies are better off doing the machine circuit at the YMCA 2 or 3 times a week, having a minimum daily step count and/or finding an activity they actually enjoy, and eating like an adult.
"The trouble about always trying to preserve the health of the body is that it is so difficult to do without destroying the health of the mind."~GK Chesterton
|
Edited by Browser on 02-09-21 10:40 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Chris Rice
Total Posts: 702
|
I'm not in the 'everyone should train with barbells' camp. Not everyone is, or wants to be, a meathead. This madness ain't for everybody.
I would go so far as to say that the only people who should train with barbells are collision sports athletes, strength athletes (like people who actually compete in a strength sport), and people who just enjoy it. Normies are better off doing the machine circuit at the YMCA 2 or 3 times a week, having a minimum daily step count and/or finding an activity they actually enjoy, and eating like an adult.
It's that "eating like an adult" thing that messes up most of us :)
|
Mr. Kent
Total Posts: 583
|
Yes load can up over many years and the strongest and fastest want to get strong and faster. At some point they have enough of this skill, whatever enough is for their goals.
I liken it to building a car. If I lived in a small European city and needed good maneuverability for the ancient street system I would choose a smaller profile vehicle, and it would NOT need a 400hp engine, but would need better steering and handling due to the terrain. Conversely, if I need to haul heavy loads up a mountain I'll need a large truck with lots of torque and heavy wheels, but don't necessarily need a lot of acceleration.
I think the mistake most athletes make (and probably strength coaches too) is that they assume the more 'horsepower' they develop the better, and that increasing one's strength will universally help performance in other areas.
Strength is only one aspect of your vehicle, but it may not be the most important one for your goals. And after a point you may need to focus on other aspects of athleticism once strength has reached a certain level. In addition to all of this some tools are better than others. A barbell (or weight room for that matter) isn't always best to develop strength. A rock climber will get a lot more out of climbing than he will out of lat pull-downs or 1-arm rows.
Edited by Mr. Kent on 02-09-21 11:19 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Kyle Aaron
Total Posts: 1911
|
03-17-21 12:25 AM - Post#908883
Far from be ideal, but even a single Easy Strength (which relies on high frequency to optimally work) training session a week would benefit most sedentary people.
Funny story: so, there was a study on partial vs deep squats. They got three groups, and tested their 1RM partial squats (no, I don't know how) and full squats. One group they had do full squats for 12 week, one group partials, and one group nothing.
As you might expect, the partial squatters didn't get better at full squatting but got better at partial squatting, the full squatters got better at both (and better at partials than the partial guys). But interestingly - the no-lifting crew actually improved their partial and full squats - and their full squats by more than the partial guys!
Simply having had a single session of testing their squats 12 weeks before made them stronger - even though they did nothing.
The purpose of training is to impose a stress on the system sufficient that the system adapts so that it is no longer a stress. If you've been doing nothing, everything is a stress which your body will adapt to.
|
Neander
Total Posts: 7755
|
The purpose of training is to impose a stress on the system sufficient that the system adapts so that it is no longer a stress.
Oh Really? That's a bit limiting.
I might agree to:
ONE of the purposes of training CAN BE to impose etc.
That line of yours is almost at an Arthur Jones level of omniscience and certainty
The purpose of training is to get what you want from it and "what you want" is multifaceted when you look across the entire spectrum of why people train.
Put lifting, put training within a limited possibility circumference and a lot can get missed over a lifetime.
What the hell ever happened to lifting in Mudville?
There's no joy!
Plenty of "science" though.
Life's too short to worry about longevity.
|
Edited by Neander on 03-17-21 04:22 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Matt_T
Total Posts: 379
|
The purpose of training is to impose a stress on the system sufficient that the system adapts so that it is no longer a stress.
Oh Really? That's a bit limiting.
I might agree to:
ONE of the purposes of training CAN BE to impose etc.
That line of yours is almost at an Arthur Jones level of omniscience and certainty
The purpose of training is to get what you want from it and "what you want" is multifaceted when you look across the entire spectrum of why people train.
Put lifting, put training within a limited possibility circumference and a lot can get missed over a lifetime.
What the hell ever happened to lifting in Mudville?
There's no joy!
Plenty of "science" though.
True this. I make a lot of high falutin' noise about goals and stuff but deep down I mostly train so I can eat crap and booze more
|
Kyle Aaron
Total Posts: 1911
|
What the hell ever happened to lifting in Mudville?
There's no joy!
That's "play." That's not "training." This is english, we have an absurd number of words, let's use them. For example, "health" means more than "not sick." Health is the absence of sickness in the same way that a good marriage is the absence of domestic violence - well yeah, but there's a bit more to it than that.
Play is activity without purpose beyond the fun of the moment.
Exercise is getting your sweat on for a bit.
Practice is of technical skills.
Training is imposing a stress on the system sufficient that the system adapts so that it is no longer a stress.
They're different things, though obviously they overlap a bit - for children, play has a training effect, for example. And if your training never has any aspects of play you'll probably never stick with it. This is why my lifters come in groups - they've come to play with their friends.
We've got lots of words. Let's use them. It makes things clearer, that way.
Edited by Kyle Aaron on 03-17-21 06:31 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Neander
Total Posts: 7755
|
That's so cute, that little talked-down-to lesson in the use of the English language!
My personal favorite section would really have to be the implication that "play" (as you mightily define it from on high, harumpah) is a childish thing to be seen as lacking the worth, importance and "purpose" (see previous bracketed) of "training" - yeah, the brackets again.
I love ya, iron buddy, even though I don't like some of your views on using that iron, and your pecking order of training purposes and their importance makes me laugh long and hard.
Life's too short to worry about longevity.
|
|
Neander
Total Posts: 7755
|
Hey, come on . . . that reply is much better than the first draft, a word tri-set of pompous, ass and hole.
Now I have to fess up to the second draft, the one that
compared your post to the agony of watching J.M. Blakely try to tell a quick joke.
Life's too short to worry about longevity.
|
Edited by Neander on 03-17-21 08:15 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Andy Mitchell
Total Posts: 5269
|
03-17-21 09:36 PM - Post#908919
Ok
Back in my day (long ago) maybe “salad days” which I think means the same thing;
Training was practicing a sport, to hone the skill to best play the game (sport)
Exercise was um exercise whereby it’s taxing and progress is linear to expose/improve the raw product to stave of injury to be able to make the most of the skill you acquired through training.
Oh well.
How one does it (exercise) is personal in terms of finding out what YOU need to do and that’s the fun part.
Nice legs-shame about the face
|
|
Andy Mitchell
Total Posts: 5269
|
03-17-21 09:37 PM - Post#908920
Marty is an arse hat.
Nice legs-shame about the face
|
|
Andy Mitchell
Total Posts: 5269
|
03-17-21 09:40 PM - Post#908921
Feels like I’m stepping back in time power and bulk days
Nice legs-shame about the face
|
|
DanMartin
Total Posts: 20705
|
03-18-21 10:32 AM - Post#908928
I like Marty and his writings. Like my man Dr. Ken, he's not for everybody. And Andy is right, your sport was your sport and you lifted weights to get better at your sport.
There was no need then to identify yourself beyond "I lift weights."
|
Andy Mitchell
Total Posts: 5269
|
03-18-21 06:55 PM - Post#908933
I’m an arse hat too
Nice legs-shame about the face
|
|
BChase
Total Posts: 854
|
03-19-21 06:46 AM - Post#908942
I guess Marty is still scarred about not being able to finish an Arthur Jones workout 40 years later.
Definitely the outrage culture is in full bloom.
|
AAnnunz
Total Posts: 24932
|
When I entered high school in 1960, we "trained" for sports and "practiced" with the team, "exercised" (did calisthenics) in gym class, and "worked out" with weights. At the time, our sports coaches didn't want us to lift, because it would make us "slow and inflexible." However, we put forth great effort with enthusiasm and hopeful joy anyway because we just knew we would eventually look like Steve Reeves and be as strong as Paul Anderson. Probably 10,000 workouts invested in the sixty-one years that followed, and I'm still not there...but the effort, enthusiasm, and hopeful joy still remain.
| Be strong. Be in shape. Be a man among men, regardless of your age or circumstances. |
Edited by AAnnunz on 03-19-21 01:01 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Neander
Total Posts: 7755
|
I’m an arse hat . . .
Welcome to the club!
Isn't that a Denis Leary song?
Life's too short to worry about longevity.
|
Edited by Neander on 03-19-21 01:32 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
