I was thinking more about the intensity and effort and their effect on muscle growth. I do tend to agree with Doug McGuff (Body By Science) - it's more about Time Under Load than anything that defines the impact in terms of level of stress (stimulus) applied to the muscle. Plus of course load itself (resistance). Other parameters (speed, number of reps, type of resistance) seem to be of less importance. Another thing I was pondering upon is what they call level of Perceived Effort. Despite the fact that it may be deemed as somewhat subjective by some people I believe that when used properly it can be a powerful measure of workout efficiency.
I use a simple system based on a few concepts I found in Stuart McRobert's Beyond Brawn to measure my effort on a set. Here's how it goes: I estimate the effort on a scale 1 to 10 like this -
10 - all-out effort, to absolute and unconditional flat-out failure (I only use positive part of the movement), the final rep cannot be completed no matter how hard you try without messing up the form;
9 - very tough effort; the final rep is completed but one more full rep would be impossible (again, with the correct form);
8 - hard effort; I completed all the planned reps with good form and could probably do one or maybe even two more if my life depended on it. But that would be it.
7 - solid effort; The weight is heavy enough but you could probably do 3-4 more if you were to go all-out.
I don't usually do anything below 7.
Here's why I like this system no matter how subjective it may appear. It allows me to keep track of my effort and intensity which adds one more dimension to help me measure the efficiency of my workouts besides weight alone. Let's say for my lat pulldown I increased poundage by 5 lbs and attempted the same 12 reps that I did last time with smaller weight. I want to make sure that I not only complete my target 12 reps but also do it with the same form, speed and effort! Let's say I did it with PE (perceived effort) of 8 (had a couple more reps left in me) last time but this time the weight felt very heavy and I ground out that final rep with extreme effort and strain and after much huffing and puffing decided that it was an honest 9, almost 10 then - no matter what the weight is - I may have not been as successful as last time. It could either be too much of an increase in resistance or my recovery has been insufficient for some reason (either too short or otherwise compromised).
One other thing. I've read a lot of discussions in bodybuilding community on whether or not training to failure is "the way to go". There's a variety of opinions and from what I read it's not a clear cut solution. My feeling is that although going to failure does indeed exemplify an all-out balls-to-the-wall effort when it comes to training intensity but it appears that it may also be too much of a burden on the CNS. Seems like its taxing into our body's recovery capability could be way too severe - to an extent where its negative side outweigh its benefits - for an average trainee, anyway. I feel that going to 8 or 9 (vs 10) might represent a "less is more" approach still providing enough stimuli for the body to grow without overtaxing it. I found for myself that when I was taking almost every working set to failure I would be tired and low of energy pretty much all the time.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Progressive overload: more thoughts (recovery)
So how long does it take for the body to fully recover from resistance training?
The funny part is that I don't think there is a definite answer to that question. The best one I can come up with is: it depends. There are numerous studies that provide such a wide variety of - not even answers - suggestions that it makes it extremely difficult to come to a complete and definite answer. I wonder if it's even possible. Different bodyparts require different amounts of time. It also vastly varies depending on the intensity and volume of training. Easy gainers and younger people with fast metabolism may require less time to fully recover than more senior "hardgainers". Traditional recommendations maintain that 2-3 days is enough for recovery, which is why most traditional programs are built around 3-4 sessions per week. "Hardgainer" pioneer Stuart McRobert, on the other hand, provides extensive evidence that 4-5 days is an absolute minimum for a typical genetically average trainee, and that some may even become overtrained on once-a-week programs.
There's another question relevant to it: how long does it take before the body becomes deconditioned, i.e. starts losing the gains after the last training session. Our body, like a well-managed team is not going to keep additional resources on the payroll unless they are used. It's been long thought that the muscle starts losing its strength after only 3-4 days unless trained again however there are other opinions claiming that the body remains "supercompensated" for 3 and even 4 weeks. It is a well known fact that some athletes take a month completely off training and come back stronger than before knocking their personal bests right off on the very first day after the break. Many HIT people train once a week and sometimes find that they grow even if they do big lifts (like squats or deadlifts) once every 10 days. Doug McGuff, father of Body For Science, claims that many of his clients maintain gains while training once every two weeks!
So where does it leave us? A range of opinions is so wide that the only choice we really have left is a good old trial and error approach.
Let's say you try working out twice a week, which gives you 3-4 days of rest between sessions. Theoretically, if your recovery time is sufficient you should be able to increase your poundage a little (say, 2-2.5 pounds) every week. The important thing is: you should be able to handle increased weight with roughly the same amount of effort and correct form. If you have to grind it out, cheating and compromising the form for the sake of making that last rep - it doesn't count! If you stall (can't handle the 2 lb increase no matter how hard you try) for more than two weeks it means your recovery is either compromised or insufficient. Whichever the case, the key is to focus on recovery - not exercise (unless there's an injury; in which case some exercise adjustments may be in order)! If that happens, it might be good time to review your eating regime, nutritional and caloric value of the food you eat, sleeping pattern (total hours of sleep per day), and possibly extend recovery time (by switching to once-a-week or 3-times-every-2-weeks mode, for example).
Again, the basic principle to remember is: if you eat well, sleep well and rest enough - you should be able to handle small weekly increases with no perceivable increase in effort! If you can't - it might be time for adjustments. Of course, there's more to it, but that's the basics.
The funny part is that I don't think there is a definite answer to that question. The best one I can come up with is: it depends. There are numerous studies that provide such a wide variety of - not even answers - suggestions that it makes it extremely difficult to come to a complete and definite answer. I wonder if it's even possible. Different bodyparts require different amounts of time. It also vastly varies depending on the intensity and volume of training. Easy gainers and younger people with fast metabolism may require less time to fully recover than more senior "hardgainers". Traditional recommendations maintain that 2-3 days is enough for recovery, which is why most traditional programs are built around 3-4 sessions per week. "Hardgainer" pioneer Stuart McRobert, on the other hand, provides extensive evidence that 4-5 days is an absolute minimum for a typical genetically average trainee, and that some may even become overtrained on once-a-week programs.
There's another question relevant to it: how long does it take before the body becomes deconditioned, i.e. starts losing the gains after the last training session. Our body, like a well-managed team is not going to keep additional resources on the payroll unless they are used. It's been long thought that the muscle starts losing its strength after only 3-4 days unless trained again however there are other opinions claiming that the body remains "supercompensated" for 3 and even 4 weeks. It is a well known fact that some athletes take a month completely off training and come back stronger than before knocking their personal bests right off on the very first day after the break. Many HIT people train once a week and sometimes find that they grow even if they do big lifts (like squats or deadlifts) once every 10 days. Doug McGuff, father of Body For Science, claims that many of his clients maintain gains while training once every two weeks!
So where does it leave us? A range of opinions is so wide that the only choice we really have left is a good old trial and error approach.
Let's say you try working out twice a week, which gives you 3-4 days of rest between sessions. Theoretically, if your recovery time is sufficient you should be able to increase your poundage a little (say, 2-2.5 pounds) every week. The important thing is: you should be able to handle increased weight with roughly the same amount of effort and correct form. If you have to grind it out, cheating and compromising the form for the sake of making that last rep - it doesn't count! If you stall (can't handle the 2 lb increase no matter how hard you try) for more than two weeks it means your recovery is either compromised or insufficient. Whichever the case, the key is to focus on recovery - not exercise (unless there's an injury; in which case some exercise adjustments may be in order)! If that happens, it might be good time to review your eating regime, nutritional and caloric value of the food you eat, sleeping pattern (total hours of sleep per day), and possibly extend recovery time (by switching to once-a-week or 3-times-every-2-weeks mode, for example).
Again, the basic principle to remember is: if you eat well, sleep well and rest enough - you should be able to handle small weekly increases with no perceivable increase in effort! If you can't - it might be time for adjustments. Of course, there's more to it, but that's the basics.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Progressive overload: more thoughts...
When I was younger the only way to train was to train heavy. Heavy was the key word and experience driven "pedal-to-the-metal" by overinflated young egos. When I stepped into the gym I would see my peers loading up the bar - which was an experience in itself - to the very limit of their abilities. And often times beyond. "Cheating" (which translates swinging and jerking up the weight to complete the set when you can't simply admit that the weight is too heavy) was a common thing to do. Of course it would be - it was promoted by the Trainer of Champions himself as a way to break through a plateau - how could he be wrong?! The correct form was more of an "old fart's" advice than a necessity. Plateau was also a mysterious thing - kinda like flu - everyone experienced it but no one really knew what caused it.
But I digress. Ok, maybe not. Back to the principle of progressive overload. One thing that I think was forgotten back in those days (and even more so today) is the fact that it is not the heavier poundage itself that causes the growth - not directly anyways - it's the growth that results in increased ability to lift heavier poundage! Again, let me rephrase it, because I think it's important. It is widely believed that constantly adding weight to your lifts is what causes body to grow (I mean growing muscle, of course). It's not. It may appear this way, yes, but it's not. Not directly anyway. It's a very simplistic way of looking at it whereas the process is more complex. The problem is, it shifts the emphasis from growth to weights whereas in fact it should be the other way around!
Here's what I think happens. Weight simply exemplifies resistance, a stimulus, which - when applied against the muscle triggers certain metabolic processes in the body, which are mostly of catabolic nature - including breakdown of muscle cells and release of certain hormones. That's where the role of the weight is pretty much complete! The nature and mode of the lift and amount of weight only affect the intensity of the breakdown and a relative combination of hormones released into the blood - that's it! The rest has nothing to do with the amount of weight you lifted in the last session - outside, like I said, the intensity of "damage" sustained by the body from working to overcome resistance.
What happens next is quite simple (without going into much detail). The hormones flooding the body trigger a set of chemical and physiological reactions that aim to repair the damage. This is where nutrition comes into play. Just like with a construction team materials (concrete, cement, limestone, bituminous mix, paint, etc.) are required to do the job certain nutrients are needed to provide the body with proper elements to do the repair. No matter how skilled and efficient your building team is insufficient or poor quality materials can hinder the process and adversely affect the outcome. Usually a certain combination of protein, carbohydrates and fats is needed to make repair efforts more efficient.
Now that your building team is engaged all you need to do is to provide sufficient supply of materials and allow enough time for the team to complete their job. If you don't supply materials - it will affect the team's dedication; they are going to get frustrated, lazy and eventually have people transfered to other projects. If you don't allow enough time - team will become overwhelmed, overstressed and will not be able to deliver at full capacity. In terms of physical training it means rest and recuperation. Eat well, sleep well and let the body take care of itself. Simple, huh? Well, from my own experience, it's much easier said than done.
So why is that? Why is it so difficult to simply rest and eat and let your "building team" take care of the repair? Well, the biggest challenge - as surprising as it is logical - is our mind. Our mind functions within the paradigm of rules. Statements and beliefs that we grew up with, learned at school, read in the books, heard in the media, etc., become rules by which we choose to live by. Often self-imposed (actually always self-imposed), although usually those are notions adopted from external sources (media, parents, friends, internet, religion).
Let's say, you come to the gym for the first time and a big guy on a bench next to you shows you a biceps curl. He also says that it's the best way ever to build big guns. Hmm, this guy is so big - he could be on to something. You take a mental note. But so far it's simply an opinion. Then you hear it again from someone else and you say "yeah! that's the way to train!"; now two people said the same thing. Then again. And again. Then you read a book or an article in a popular muscle building magazine that says that you should be training every other day and sometimes two out of three days your - and this is when your mind makes a conclusion that this is the way it should be. It's written in a book, after all, isn't it? And what if it comes from, say, Arnold the Governor or Joe the Trainer of Champions since 1936! People who made bodybuilding the sport it is today. And if the statement is souped up by a glossy image of a model with ripped abs? Chances are you not only will take it as an opinion - it may well become your truth, i.e. the rule you decide to live by without questioning its validity. It becomes one of the ten commandments to you. That's why advertising is such a powerful tool...
If for years and years you have been hearing that unless you train every other day - 3-4 times a week - you are not doing it right - even if your body is screaming "I'm tired! Give me a break!" what are the chances that you will listen to its plea? That's right: next to nothing! Why? Because your mind is conditioned to stick to the rules. Rules are the framework within which it operates.
Now back to training. I'll talk about the philosophy of rules in one of my other posts.
So we have established that rest and recuperation are a step critical to ensure that muscle is not only repaired but repaired exceedingly. In exercise physiology this is called supercompensation. Not only the body repairs the damage caused by stress in the form of resistance but it strengthens existing fibers and builds some extra ones in "anticipation" of an increased demand. This results in increased ability of the body to overcome resistance. This is a temporary condition, in a sense that unless this increased demand is imposed to the body the recruited fibers will gradually lose their ability to work against load. And it makes sense, the construction manager is not going to keep his entire team on the job unless there's enough work for them simply because the costs of keeping them there will not be justified. However, if the higher demand is applied again within that timeframe it will trigger the same processes and the body's ability to withstand higher resistance will increase yet again. There you have it. It's the theory of training.
To sum it up:
Step 1. Resistance is applied to the muscle (stress phase).
Step 2. Muscle is forced to work against resistance it is not accustomed to (overload), which results in temporary disruption of normal muscle cell metabolism and causes certain damage to the fibers (catabolic phase).
Step 3. A chain of chemical and physiological reactions is triggered and certain hormones are released into the blood to repair the damage and promote the healing process (anabolic phase).
Step 4. Damaged fibers are repaired with excess which means they attain a temporary state of higher capacity that allows them to handle higher levels of stress (adaptation and supercompensation).
Or put it simply:
Train well.
Eat well, sleep well and rest well until supercompensation occurs and you feel stronger than before.
Increase your working resistance a little.
Repeat steps 1 to 3 over and over again until you grow as strong and muscular as you want.
Of course there's more to it, but that's it in a nutshell.
So the key to progressive overload is to apply increased resistance (stress) but ONLY when the body has recovered enough to be able to handle it! Not until then. Consistently pushing yourself harder before your body is fully recovered from the previous session is the reason why there's much less muscle in the world than it is called for! So if everyone had focused more on growth than on the amount of weight lifted the world would have been a more muscular place in just a few short months.
Now, having said that, the question still remains: how long does it take for the body to repair the damage and supercompensate? And that's a million dollar question.
(...to be continued)
But I digress. Ok, maybe not. Back to the principle of progressive overload. One thing that I think was forgotten back in those days (and even more so today) is the fact that it is not the heavier poundage itself that causes the growth - not directly anyways - it's the growth that results in increased ability to lift heavier poundage! Again, let me rephrase it, because I think it's important. It is widely believed that constantly adding weight to your lifts is what causes body to grow (I mean growing muscle, of course). It's not. It may appear this way, yes, but it's not. Not directly anyway. It's a very simplistic way of looking at it whereas the process is more complex. The problem is, it shifts the emphasis from growth to weights whereas in fact it should be the other way around!
Here's what I think happens. Weight simply exemplifies resistance, a stimulus, which - when applied against the muscle triggers certain metabolic processes in the body, which are mostly of catabolic nature - including breakdown of muscle cells and release of certain hormones. That's where the role of the weight is pretty much complete! The nature and mode of the lift and amount of weight only affect the intensity of the breakdown and a relative combination of hormones released into the blood - that's it! The rest has nothing to do with the amount of weight you lifted in the last session - outside, like I said, the intensity of "damage" sustained by the body from working to overcome resistance.
What happens next is quite simple (without going into much detail). The hormones flooding the body trigger a set of chemical and physiological reactions that aim to repair the damage. This is where nutrition comes into play. Just like with a construction team materials (concrete, cement, limestone, bituminous mix, paint, etc.) are required to do the job certain nutrients are needed to provide the body with proper elements to do the repair. No matter how skilled and efficient your building team is insufficient or poor quality materials can hinder the process and adversely affect the outcome. Usually a certain combination of protein, carbohydrates and fats is needed to make repair efforts more efficient.
Now that your building team is engaged all you need to do is to provide sufficient supply of materials and allow enough time for the team to complete their job. If you don't supply materials - it will affect the team's dedication; they are going to get frustrated, lazy and eventually have people transfered to other projects. If you don't allow enough time - team will become overwhelmed, overstressed and will not be able to deliver at full capacity. In terms of physical training it means rest and recuperation. Eat well, sleep well and let the body take care of itself. Simple, huh? Well, from my own experience, it's much easier said than done.
So why is that? Why is it so difficult to simply rest and eat and let your "building team" take care of the repair? Well, the biggest challenge - as surprising as it is logical - is our mind. Our mind functions within the paradigm of rules. Statements and beliefs that we grew up with, learned at school, read in the books, heard in the media, etc., become rules by which we choose to live by. Often self-imposed (actually always self-imposed), although usually those are notions adopted from external sources (media, parents, friends, internet, religion).
Let's say, you come to the gym for the first time and a big guy on a bench next to you shows you a biceps curl. He also says that it's the best way ever to build big guns. Hmm, this guy is so big - he could be on to something. You take a mental note. But so far it's simply an opinion. Then you hear it again from someone else and you say "yeah! that's the way to train!"; now two people said the same thing. Then again. And again. Then you read a book or an article in a popular muscle building magazine that says that you should be training every other day and sometimes two out of three days your - and this is when your mind makes a conclusion that this is the way it should be. It's written in a book, after all, isn't it? And what if it comes from, say, Arnold the Governor or Joe the Trainer of Champions since 1936! People who made bodybuilding the sport it is today. And if the statement is souped up by a glossy image of a model with ripped abs? Chances are you not only will take it as an opinion - it may well become your truth, i.e. the rule you decide to live by without questioning its validity. It becomes one of the ten commandments to you. That's why advertising is such a powerful tool...
If for years and years you have been hearing that unless you train every other day - 3-4 times a week - you are not doing it right - even if your body is screaming "I'm tired! Give me a break!" what are the chances that you will listen to its plea? That's right: next to nothing! Why? Because your mind is conditioned to stick to the rules. Rules are the framework within which it operates.
Now back to training. I'll talk about the philosophy of rules in one of my other posts.
So we have established that rest and recuperation are a step critical to ensure that muscle is not only repaired but repaired exceedingly. In exercise physiology this is called supercompensation. Not only the body repairs the damage caused by stress in the form of resistance but it strengthens existing fibers and builds some extra ones in "anticipation" of an increased demand. This results in increased ability of the body to overcome resistance. This is a temporary condition, in a sense that unless this increased demand is imposed to the body the recruited fibers will gradually lose their ability to work against load. And it makes sense, the construction manager is not going to keep his entire team on the job unless there's enough work for them simply because the costs of keeping them there will not be justified. However, if the higher demand is applied again within that timeframe it will trigger the same processes and the body's ability to withstand higher resistance will increase yet again. There you have it. It's the theory of training.
To sum it up:
Step 1. Resistance is applied to the muscle (stress phase).
Step 2. Muscle is forced to work against resistance it is not accustomed to (overload), which results in temporary disruption of normal muscle cell metabolism and causes certain damage to the fibers (catabolic phase).
Step 3. A chain of chemical and physiological reactions is triggered and certain hormones are released into the blood to repair the damage and promote the healing process (anabolic phase).
Step 4. Damaged fibers are repaired with excess which means they attain a temporary state of higher capacity that allows them to handle higher levels of stress (adaptation and supercompensation).
Or put it simply:
Train well.
Eat well, sleep well and rest well until supercompensation occurs and you feel stronger than before.
Increase your working resistance a little.
Repeat steps 1 to 3 over and over again until you grow as strong and muscular as you want.
Of course there's more to it, but that's it in a nutshell.
So the key to progressive overload is to apply increased resistance (stress) but ONLY when the body has recovered enough to be able to handle it! Not until then. Consistently pushing yourself harder before your body is fully recovered from the previous session is the reason why there's much less muscle in the world than it is called for! So if everyone had focused more on growth than on the amount of weight lifted the world would have been a more muscular place in just a few short months.
Now, having said that, the question still remains: how long does it take for the body to repair the damage and supercompensate? And that's a million dollar question.
(...to be continued)
Monday, November 9, 2009
Principle of progressive overload: my thoughts
Reading Stuart McRobert's books made me think and re-think the principle of progressive overload, which seems to be one of the key principles behind weight training. Unfortunately enough this principle seems to have become almost buried under a host of programs and training techniques and marred to an extent where everyone knew that it existed but nobody really cared for it. The essense of the principle is that for a muscle to grow it needs to be stimulated with gradually increasing resistance.
However, looking back at my years of training I realized that except for the first few months of training I never really consciously used the principle - not successfully anyways. In hindsight I realize why it happened the way it did. The thing is that in the initial few months back in 1987 when I first started I didn't really know my body and didn't have the feeling for the weights. However after 6 or so months I apparently was able to build some muscle (although back in those days I didn't really bother weighing myself so I can't even tell how much muscle I actually built) and learned a bit about weights. So after those few months whenever I would start a new program or exercise I would immediately jump into heaviest weights I could handle at the recommended number of reps and go full-bore into training right off the bat. I would follow it religiously burning my muscle and - now I realize - my CNS to a point of overtraining (sometime very severe) very quickly. But I didn't know it was overtraining. I was diligently trying to add pounds to my lifts every time - pretty much grinding every set to failure but to no avail. I didn't know why I wasn't growing, why I was constantly feeling tired and sluggish despite eating everything in sight. There was no one around to knock some senses into me - everyone was working out hard, hard, and harder. There was no internet back then - I was turning to Joe Weider's and Arnold's books for answers - but all I could find was "train more, train harder, train till you puke", shock your body, surprise your body. And I was doing forced reps, cheating, fighting for those last reps like crazy. I couldn't understand why nothing was happening. Except that I was feeling more and more tired and hating the guts of that gym. That seemed to be the only way to do it. I was doing it for 20 years. Up and down with none to marginal growth, I kept pushing and pushing. Madness...
Stuart's books were the first ones that made me realize a few things. First, that it wasn't lack of training that kept me away from the body I wanted. On the contrary, it was TOO much and TOO frequent. For the first time in my life the light came on and I realized that 3-4 times a week with 30 sets done to failure was a road to Hell. Maybe not for Arnold, not for Haney, not for Coleman - but for me it certainly was. My body was trying to tell me, heck, scream at me at the top of its lungs "give me a goddamn break!!" - but I wouldn't listen. Heck, no! I was under a spell. Arnold and Joe and all the glossy magazines he published couldn't be wrong - my body was. I thought. In all my years of training I can count days when I felt energized! If that's not madness, then I don't know what is.
Working to failure. Now I don't believe that working to failure is necessary. Stuart introduced a concept that was new to me: small weekly increments - 1 to 2.5 lbs depending on the exercise. The key is to allow your body to adapt to a point where new increased poundage feels no heavier than the one from last week! That's it!! Instead of forcing your body to lift more through compromised form and cheating how about ALLOWING it to grow into it naturall? Literally! If you can't handle the expected weight without compromising the form, if the weight feels too heavy, it means that your body isn't ready yet. Give it a few more days and let this new weight feel as light as previous one!
Another great eye-opening notion was momentum gaining cycles. Its gist is as follows: when you start a new cycle DO NOT start with the same weight as the one you finished previous cycle with! Drop the weight by 25-30 % and build back gradually. Let the body gain the momentum. That was my most critical mistake all along. Whenever I started a new program I would immediately jump into heaviest weights possible, whatever the target rep was. Ultimately I was always working at a RM level be it 10RM, 8RM or 12RM. That means I was always working against maximum resistance forcing myself to the gym 3-4 times a week.
(...to be continued)
However, looking back at my years of training I realized that except for the first few months of training I never really consciously used the principle - not successfully anyways. In hindsight I realize why it happened the way it did. The thing is that in the initial few months back in 1987 when I first started I didn't really know my body and didn't have the feeling for the weights. However after 6 or so months I apparently was able to build some muscle (although back in those days I didn't really bother weighing myself so I can't even tell how much muscle I actually built) and learned a bit about weights. So after those few months whenever I would start a new program or exercise I would immediately jump into heaviest weights I could handle at the recommended number of reps and go full-bore into training right off the bat. I would follow it religiously burning my muscle and - now I realize - my CNS to a point of overtraining (sometime very severe) very quickly. But I didn't know it was overtraining. I was diligently trying to add pounds to my lifts every time - pretty much grinding every set to failure but to no avail. I didn't know why I wasn't growing, why I was constantly feeling tired and sluggish despite eating everything in sight. There was no one around to knock some senses into me - everyone was working out hard, hard, and harder. There was no internet back then - I was turning to Joe Weider's and Arnold's books for answers - but all I could find was "train more, train harder, train till you puke", shock your body, surprise your body. And I was doing forced reps, cheating, fighting for those last reps like crazy. I couldn't understand why nothing was happening. Except that I was feeling more and more tired and hating the guts of that gym. That seemed to be the only way to do it. I was doing it for 20 years. Up and down with none to marginal growth, I kept pushing and pushing. Madness...
Stuart's books were the first ones that made me realize a few things. First, that it wasn't lack of training that kept me away from the body I wanted. On the contrary, it was TOO much and TOO frequent. For the first time in my life the light came on and I realized that 3-4 times a week with 30 sets done to failure was a road to Hell. Maybe not for Arnold, not for Haney, not for Coleman - but for me it certainly was. My body was trying to tell me, heck, scream at me at the top of its lungs "give me a goddamn break!!" - but I wouldn't listen. Heck, no! I was under a spell. Arnold and Joe and all the glossy magazines he published couldn't be wrong - my body was. I thought. In all my years of training I can count days when I felt energized! If that's not madness, then I don't know what is.
Working to failure. Now I don't believe that working to failure is necessary. Stuart introduced a concept that was new to me: small weekly increments - 1 to 2.5 lbs depending on the exercise. The key is to allow your body to adapt to a point where new increased poundage feels no heavier than the one from last week! That's it!! Instead of forcing your body to lift more through compromised form and cheating how about ALLOWING it to grow into it naturall? Literally! If you can't handle the expected weight without compromising the form, if the weight feels too heavy, it means that your body isn't ready yet. Give it a few more days and let this new weight feel as light as previous one!
Another great eye-opening notion was momentum gaining cycles. Its gist is as follows: when you start a new cycle DO NOT start with the same weight as the one you finished previous cycle with! Drop the weight by 25-30 % and build back gradually. Let the body gain the momentum. That was my most critical mistake all along. Whenever I started a new program I would immediately jump into heaviest weights possible, whatever the target rep was. Ultimately I was always working at a RM level be it 10RM, 8RM or 12RM. That means I was always working against maximum resistance forcing myself to the gym 3-4 times a week.
(...to be continued)
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Stuart McRobert: bodybuilding for hardgainers
Those who know my philosophy about fitness, diet and bodybuilding (in a large sense - not just building muscle) know that I've been on a "mission" - my quest for a healthier body, search for an approach that would be based not on violence, but on "invitation". To coax, not coerce. Which means methods and practices designed to invite the body to change in the direction we want, rather than trying to violently force it to. Years of studying and practicing bodybuilding (mostly unsuccessfully - in a sense that I did not succeed in or even get close enough to building the body I wanted - even though I have always been in a fairly decent shape compared to many of my peers) and nutritional approaches made me realize that most conventional methods and techniques of altering your body are based on an ongoing fight against our bodies - usually by subjecting it to various forms of deprivation, over-exertion, extreme stress, etc.
When I first heard about Stuart McRobert I was in the process of arriving to a simple but painful realization that years of battering my body and following conventional and some less than routines (nutrition and training) in an attempt to make it change the way I wanted did not produce the results I wanted - no matter how hard I tried. I would always end up pretty much at the same weight (give or take), percentage of fat (give or take) and not any closer to where I wanted to be.
Stuart appears to be one of the pioneers who - through his own painful experience - first came to conclusion that a rate in which our body can grow muscle depends primarily on its ability to recuperate, when subjected to physical training. Second, he concluded that routines presented in most muscle-building magazines and books only apply to a relative minority of people blessed with favourable genetics - in terms of their ability to respond to exercise and speed of recovery. The rest of the population (which is most of us), he contended, are those whose bodies are less genetically blessed therefore take longer to recover and grow and can only handle a much smaller amount of training that they can respond to without becoming overtrained than is widely believed. He's the one who coined a term "hardgainer" and ran Hardgainer magazine for several years. I read four of his books. The one I liked best is "Beyond Brawn" simply because it - in my opinion - is more suited to a more experienced lifter. I found more answers to my questions in this book than in the other three combined.
His main philosophy revolves around several key points:
When I first heard about Stuart McRobert I was in the process of arriving to a simple but painful realization that years of battering my body and following conventional and some less than routines (nutrition and training) in an attempt to make it change the way I wanted did not produce the results I wanted - no matter how hard I tried. I would always end up pretty much at the same weight (give or take), percentage of fat (give or take) and not any closer to where I wanted to be.
Stuart appears to be one of the pioneers who - through his own painful experience - first came to conclusion that a rate in which our body can grow muscle depends primarily on its ability to recuperate, when subjected to physical training. Second, he concluded that routines presented in most muscle-building magazines and books only apply to a relative minority of people blessed with favourable genetics - in terms of their ability to respond to exercise and speed of recovery. The rest of the population (which is most of us), he contended, are those whose bodies are less genetically blessed therefore take longer to recover and grow and can only handle a much smaller amount of training that they can respond to without becoming overtrained than is widely believed. He's the one who coined a term "hardgainer" and ran Hardgainer magazine for several years. I read four of his books. The one I liked best is "Beyond Brawn" simply because it - in my opinion - is more suited to a more experienced lifter. I found more answers to my questions in this book than in the other three combined.
His main philosophy revolves around several key points:
- A genetically average trainee should not copy training routines of more genetically blessed. Ironically those are the ones most magazines and books present to the public as the way to train. He believes that many trainees overtrain themselves badly when they try following those. In that sense I absolutely agree that, in a way, Joe Weider - although played a major role in popularization of bodybuilding in the last 40 years - may have caused a lot of damage to the training population by promoting champions' routines as the only way to train.
- Training frequency. He believes that 3 and 4 times of hard training a week is a definite overkill for an average trainee simply because it stretches their bodies' recuperative abilities too far.
- Correct form of exercise. Stuart preaches it with passion putting quite a heavy emphasis on it. Although I understand that it, in itself, is not going to grow more muscle but it goes a long way in terms of preventing injuries.
- Progressive overload. A principle of progressive load - which seems to have been a cornerstone of training since the beginning of times - surprisingly is not given enough justice in popular magazines. It often comes almost as a side-note as does "recuperation" by the way.
Although I certainly agree with Stuart on many accounts, some things still don't ring the truth to me. Too much emphasis is on genetic limitations, in my opinion - almost to a point where it becomes a negative mantra ("I can't grow as much muscle as I want because chances are I'm genetically challenged"). Thing is - you don't know until you try...
(...to be continued... possibly :)))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)