More on rational thinking.....Charles Poliquin suggests that the ideal time under tension for hypertrophy is between 40 and 70 seconds. This Waterbury guy talks about 9 seconds in his 10x3 method. Poliquin has an impressive physique and even more impressive real world results. Look at all the the professional and olympic athletes Poliquin has trained. Who has Waterbury trained? Seems to me his following consists mainly of a bunch of nameless faces on internet message boards.
©ALL CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE ADMINISTRATORS CONSENT 2002-2024
.gif "IP Gear")
Think about this one
- Thread starter PHIL HERNON
- Start date
10 x 10 (charles Poliquin)
charles has so many traning methods its hard to put a finger on what exactly he beleives. never the less, charles is one of the best!
(10 x 10)
http://www.strengthcats.com/CP-GVT.html
charles on Hit Training, Dorian Training, Mentzer. and dare i say DC training program methods.
http://www.strengthcats.com/CPworkingtofailure.htm
Working to Failure
Owners of Will's latest ebook 'Muscle Building Nutrition' http://musclebuildingnutrition.com have access to a private discussion board where both Will and Charles Poliquin are available to answer your questions. Check out this example and you'll see what a great resource the member's section offers to owners of MBN
Recent Question to Charles on the MBN member's board.....
'Working to failure'. Do you recommend it for long-term use? The reason I ask is that I like (love!) going to failure on each and every set, except warm ups of course. I find it an easy indicator of strength gains/losses from workout to workout, recording everything including time between sets. Is there 'room' for it in your 'Intensification/Accumulation' phases? Also, I've been lifting for about 3 months now, making consistent strength gains on this 'failure' system, up until 3 weeks ago.
Now, each workout, I am weaker than the one before. I've changed little in my diet during this period except my protein powder, now being 'Optimum Nutrition 100% Whey' which has significantly fewer carbs but more protein than its predecessor; have also upped my EFA's (essential fatty acids).
So, if anything at all, that I can really see here, is a lower intake of carbs.
Could this be my problem, or have I been overtraining i.e. to failure for too long, or both? It's slowly driving me crazy trying to figure it out..please help!!!
—
And here's Charles answer...
Let's define «absolute muscle failure » The first step in defining this term is to review the fact that there are three types of muscle contraction: concentric, isometric and eccentric.
When a muscle shortens, it is called a concentric contraction, like when you raise the barbell in curls by shortening the elbow flexors.
When you lower the same barbell, your muscle lengthens - perform an eccentric contraction.
Finally, a muscle can also contract without changing the joint angle or also known as an - isometric or static contraction, like in the case of a gymnast holding an iron cross.
Isometric contractions are normally 10-15% stronger than concentric contraction, while eccentric contractions are as much as 75% stronger than concentric contraction, with the average between 25 to 40% greater than the concentric contraction.
In other words, if you can curl 100 lbs, you can hold 110-115 lbs at pretty much any angle in the range of motion, and can lower safely 125 to 140 lbs.
There are three types of muscular failure, one associated with each type of contraction One is known to fail concentrically when one cannot raise the weight, to fail statically when one is not able hold the weight at any given point in the range of motion, and to fail eccentrically when to not able to lower the weight under control at a given tempo.
When one reaches failure on all three types of muscular contraction, he is known to have reached «absolute muscle failure».
Rarely you will find athletes who train to this level of failure - simply because it's masochism has fallen out of grace.
Since there are three types of contraction, there are three degrees of failure.
You can train to just concentric and/or static and/or eccentric failure. Typically, the higher the degree of failure (closer you approach total eccentric failure), the less you can control the weight, and hence common sense will tell you that exercise performance is not being safe anymore.
Your muscles simply cannot generate enough strength to control the weight, thus you are predisposing yourself to injury.
To answer your question, is it absolutely necessary to achieve muscle growth? Certainly not, just look at the hypertrophy of powerlifters and Olympic lifters, they rarely if ever train to failure and yet achieve significant hypertrophy in the trained muscles.
The only people that I have seen make significant gains on «absolute failure» had the following in common:
1. They were amphetamines user like Ritalin who disguised their animalistic training drive by claiming it is was instead influenced by the readings of German philosophers and/or listening to Wagnerian music prior to training, Please don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
2. They were severe exogeneous androgen users i.e. 2,000 mg to 3000 mg of various testoterones a week, and 100-300 mg of orals a day (i.e. Dianabol and Anadrol)
3. The obsession with making progress in training loads leads to improper technique. They all ended up tearing one or more of the following: biceps, pec, lat and quadriceps. One Mr. Olympia finalist, tore a biceps training in this fashion while loosely curling an 85 lbs on a Scott bench, while a more reasonable weight in good form would have been 65 lbs.
4. They all suffered from adrenal exhaustion and paranoia, probably because of the abuse of 1.
Training to absolute muscle failure is a concept that has been around for about the last 25 years or so. Mike Mentzer and Nautilus machine inventor Arthur Jones were the initial proponents of this training methodology.
It gained rapid popularity because it went strongly against the grain of the training methodology popular in the bodybuilding meccas of Northern Europe and Southern California.
In the early seventies, we were told to do 20 sets a bodypart, two workouts a week per bodypart, and only take Sundays off .
So obviously doing only 1-2 sets per bodypart 2-3 per week in full body workouts was considered either heresy or something valid to look at.
Since then, many training systems have been used. In my opinion, training to absolute failure should be used vary sparingly, maybe once every 8 weeks should suffice, and only after a very progressive warm-ups.
Systematic variations in both intensity and volume, not training to absolute failure are the keys to muscle growth.
In certain training methods like German Volume Training, one does not need to reach concentric failure on every set. Unless specifically mentioned you can assume that every set prescribed is a work set. Therefore you should reach concentric muscle failure.
However I also believe that many trainees fail to achieve their training goals by exhausting their neuro-endocrine.
You know the type of trainee that does a 6 seconds isometric contraction after failing to complete the concentric range.
A principle is always for long-term use. Hence the name principle.
Yes, you are overtraining.
charles has so many traning methods its hard to put a finger on what exactly he beleives. never the less, charles is one of the best!
(10 x 10)
http://www.strengthcats.com/CP-GVT.html
charles on Hit Training, Dorian Training, Mentzer. and dare i say DC training program methods.
http://www.strengthcats.com/CPworkingtofailure.htm
Working to Failure
Owners of Will's latest ebook 'Muscle Building Nutrition' http://musclebuildingnutrition.com have access to a private discussion board where both Will and Charles Poliquin are available to answer your questions. Check out this example and you'll see what a great resource the member's section offers to owners of MBN
Recent Question to Charles on the MBN member's board.....
'Working to failure'. Do you recommend it for long-term use? The reason I ask is that I like (love!) going to failure on each and every set, except warm ups of course. I find it an easy indicator of strength gains/losses from workout to workout, recording everything including time between sets. Is there 'room' for it in your 'Intensification/Accumulation' phases? Also, I've been lifting for about 3 months now, making consistent strength gains on this 'failure' system, up until 3 weeks ago.
Now, each workout, I am weaker than the one before. I've changed little in my diet during this period except my protein powder, now being 'Optimum Nutrition 100% Whey' which has significantly fewer carbs but more protein than its predecessor; have also upped my EFA's (essential fatty acids).
So, if anything at all, that I can really see here, is a lower intake of carbs.
Could this be my problem, or have I been overtraining i.e. to failure for too long, or both? It's slowly driving me crazy trying to figure it out..please help!!!
—
And here's Charles answer...
Let's define «absolute muscle failure » The first step in defining this term is to review the fact that there are three types of muscle contraction: concentric, isometric and eccentric.
When a muscle shortens, it is called a concentric contraction, like when you raise the barbell in curls by shortening the elbow flexors.
When you lower the same barbell, your muscle lengthens - perform an eccentric contraction.
Finally, a muscle can also contract without changing the joint angle or also known as an - isometric or static contraction, like in the case of a gymnast holding an iron cross.
Isometric contractions are normally 10-15% stronger than concentric contraction, while eccentric contractions are as much as 75% stronger than concentric contraction, with the average between 25 to 40% greater than the concentric contraction.
In other words, if you can curl 100 lbs, you can hold 110-115 lbs at pretty much any angle in the range of motion, and can lower safely 125 to 140 lbs.
There are three types of muscular failure, one associated with each type of contraction One is known to fail concentrically when one cannot raise the weight, to fail statically when one is not able hold the weight at any given point in the range of motion, and to fail eccentrically when to not able to lower the weight under control at a given tempo.
When one reaches failure on all three types of muscular contraction, he is known to have reached «absolute muscle failure».
Rarely you will find athletes who train to this level of failure - simply because it's masochism has fallen out of grace.
Since there are three types of contraction, there are three degrees of failure.
You can train to just concentric and/or static and/or eccentric failure. Typically, the higher the degree of failure (closer you approach total eccentric failure), the less you can control the weight, and hence common sense will tell you that exercise performance is not being safe anymore.
Your muscles simply cannot generate enough strength to control the weight, thus you are predisposing yourself to injury.
To answer your question, is it absolutely necessary to achieve muscle growth? Certainly not, just look at the hypertrophy of powerlifters and Olympic lifters, they rarely if ever train to failure and yet achieve significant hypertrophy in the trained muscles.
The only people that I have seen make significant gains on «absolute failure» had the following in common:
1. They were amphetamines user like Ritalin who disguised their animalistic training drive by claiming it is was instead influenced by the readings of German philosophers and/or listening to Wagnerian music prior to training, Please don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
2. They were severe exogeneous androgen users i.e. 2,000 mg to 3000 mg of various testoterones a week, and 100-300 mg of orals a day (i.e. Dianabol and Anadrol)
3. The obsession with making progress in training loads leads to improper technique. They all ended up tearing one or more of the following: biceps, pec, lat and quadriceps. One Mr. Olympia finalist, tore a biceps training in this fashion while loosely curling an 85 lbs on a Scott bench, while a more reasonable weight in good form would have been 65 lbs.
4. They all suffered from adrenal exhaustion and paranoia, probably because of the abuse of 1.
Training to absolute muscle failure is a concept that has been around for about the last 25 years or so. Mike Mentzer and Nautilus machine inventor Arthur Jones were the initial proponents of this training methodology.
It gained rapid popularity because it went strongly against the grain of the training methodology popular in the bodybuilding meccas of Northern Europe and Southern California.
In the early seventies, we were told to do 20 sets a bodypart, two workouts a week per bodypart, and only take Sundays off .
So obviously doing only 1-2 sets per bodypart 2-3 per week in full body workouts was considered either heresy or something valid to look at.
Since then, many training systems have been used. In my opinion, training to absolute failure should be used vary sparingly, maybe once every 8 weeks should suffice, and only after a very progressive warm-ups.
Systematic variations in both intensity and volume, not training to absolute failure are the keys to muscle growth.
In certain training methods like German Volume Training, one does not need to reach concentric failure on every set. Unless specifically mentioned you can assume that every set prescribed is a work set. Therefore you should reach concentric muscle failure.
However I also believe that many trainees fail to achieve their training goals by exhausting their neuro-endocrine.
You know the type of trainee that does a 6 seconds isometric contraction after failing to complete the concentric range.
A principle is always for long-term use. Hence the name principle.
Yes, you are overtraining.
Last edited:
I agree 100% that training to failure on a consistent basis natural or not is not the best idea in the world. However, I think for short periods of time it has its place. I never claimed to support training to failure each and every workout I certainly don't do it and my body certainly cant handle it. I used Dorian and DC training as examples to make a point. Obviously if you take into account an enhanced athlete vs a natural athlete we are in a whole different stratosphere of recovery capabilities, tissue growth and repair.
never have done GVT
but 5 x 5 and even 10 x 3 are similar basis. i have done 10x5 (poliquin's advanced GVT)
the reason i think 10x3 is a good program for bodybuilders is b/c they are so used to trainig higher reps. they don't have any functional strength. So not only does this method build good mass it builds up your strenght so that when you go back to your more conventional bodybuilding rep schemes you will be able to lift more weight which will allow to ge bigger faster. training for maximal stenght is essential for long terms gains, it compliments higher rep training. charels P has alot of respect for some of the guys at T-nation as has stated that repeatedly. He also writes articles and does interviews for the site regularly.
I have done and recomended alot of Poliquins programs to others and i like them. I have stuck up for CP on here several times when people said he sucked. I have even typed out routines of his on here. However, I really would like to sit down and talk to him b/c i get very confused with some of his stuff b/c it seems to be verycontradicting at times.
I by no means think that there is one way to train. and the more u learn you realize that so many things can work. if it couldn't there wouldn't be a debate on training. and different volumes, instensities, etc will dictate different frequencies. I have been pretty anti-Failure in this thread but failure training definately has its place and there actually is some good application of failure training. You won't find this type of training too much though for world class lifters. but when these coaches say failure they usually mean where the last rep is challengeing while maintaing good form. these methods would of course require less frequency but that doesn't matter, Frequency can be EXTREMELY over rated as well at times. I hear alot of these hardcore trainers say things like "you can't comprehend the instensity required to do this program or it takes years of heavy training to learn how to torture you body in such a fashion and push beyond your mental limitation" , that is the type of failure training that has no place. i think there should be a method or reasoning behind everything no matter what you do. If you even listen to some of those interviews by L. Simmons he talks about the Law of Accomodation, it taht everything works, nothing works forever. However, there are things that work better than others and there are certain ways to cycle certain things to get better gains. I think people should be encouraged to attempt different things as long as there is validity to it.
and to be honest i really don't see an abundance of these "before and after" photos u speak of about this magic training program. I especially don't see them with natural athletes.
the thing that puts a bad taste in my mouth a bit is that DCers talks about how a "power lifter trains", "look at the thickness of powerlifters". and "the greatest mass gains come from the greateste strenght gains". But the fact of the matter is, they don't train like powerlifters at all. they train similar to Arthur Jones, Mike Mentzer,Viator, and Yates. They view Intensity as Percieved Effort not in terms of mathematics like world class powerlifter or olympic lifter. I trained Mentzer and Dorian style for awhile, it sounded really appealing at the time and it worked a lil in the beginning, more so "on cycle". But other than me feeling like a hardcore bad ass in the gym it ended up doing very little.
I hate to point people out, but Big Heinz is a big believer in HIT training. Mass Monster said people on this board have build lots of Mass with teqhniques ranging from high volume to 1 set to failure. Big H has definately built some mass but how much drugs has he had to take to do that? is he really qualifed to give people training advice just b/c he has mass and is lean? wouldn't any training program work if you took that much steroids and ate 10k a day? I hear Dan Duchaine was very smart but he was very small. Does that mean he was really full of shit and couldn't apply it to himself?NO. thats how i view your comments about waterbury who is getting older and also a natural lifter.he is actually extremely strong, not chump like you are implying. he trains althletes on all levels including professional. I could go to that site and dig through the pages and pull up some amazing transformations with waterbury/Christian Tibadua methods but i'm not going to.
and sadly i see a lot of people looking for advice about how to get started in bodybuilding getting pushed in the direction of these HIT programs.
I remember Vander was getting ridiculed on here not too long ago about how he is doesn't know how to train, high volume this, high volume that, and the reason he makes gains is b/c he has good genes. and if he did low set failure training he would be better.
there seems to be a craze on this board, in that "volume" is what causes over training and that simply is not true in the slightlest bit. its been shown over and over that skelital muscle is the most adaptable thing in the human body. If it wasn't then humans would have died out long long ago.
there are LOTS of factors and in actuality, its this animalistic barbaric massive CNS straining failure training that will cause more overtraining that anything. not to mention how burdensome it becomes after awhile,the risk of muscle tears, and joint problems. for some reason people today, see this need to "train hardcore, and balls wall". they may even site some evidence from a Cheap study. I gurantee you will find way more science,application, and real world results where there is a proper balance between weight, Sets, Reps, CNS fatigue, and frequency. I really don't know how you are saying show me the real world results. I have named many,I could sit here all day and give you real world examples.
I just watched that Jay Cutler video, I know he does pretty high sets, more than i would ever do but i'm not Jay Cutler. IF you watch him train, he's using pretty heavy weight, using pretty damn good form, and pulls up shy of failure, or goes to failure but does not over indulge and hes huge. Is Jay Cutler training wrong? how much weight do you think jay would gain if he stopped his improper training and HIT trained?
I like his saying at the end
"I don't train heavy enough but i'm number two in the fucking world"
but 5 x 5 and even 10 x 3 are similar basis. i have done 10x5 (poliquin's advanced GVT)
the reason i think 10x3 is a good program for bodybuilders is b/c they are so used to trainig higher reps. they don't have any functional strength. So not only does this method build good mass it builds up your strenght so that when you go back to your more conventional bodybuilding rep schemes you will be able to lift more weight which will allow to ge bigger faster. training for maximal stenght is essential for long terms gains, it compliments higher rep training. charels P has alot of respect for some of the guys at T-nation as has stated that repeatedly. He also writes articles and does interviews for the site regularly.
I have done and recomended alot of Poliquins programs to others and i like them. I have stuck up for CP on here several times when people said he sucked. I have even typed out routines of his on here. However, I really would like to sit down and talk to him b/c i get very confused with some of his stuff b/c it seems to be verycontradicting at times.
I by no means think that there is one way to train. and the more u learn you realize that so many things can work. if it couldn't there wouldn't be a debate on training. and different volumes, instensities, etc will dictate different frequencies. I have been pretty anti-Failure in this thread but failure training definately has its place and there actually is some good application of failure training. You won't find this type of training too much though for world class lifters. but when these coaches say failure they usually mean where the last rep is challengeing while maintaing good form. these methods would of course require less frequency but that doesn't matter, Frequency can be EXTREMELY over rated as well at times. I hear alot of these hardcore trainers say things like "you can't comprehend the instensity required to do this program or it takes years of heavy training to learn how to torture you body in such a fashion and push beyond your mental limitation" , that is the type of failure training that has no place. i think there should be a method or reasoning behind everything no matter what you do. If you even listen to some of those interviews by L. Simmons he talks about the Law of Accomodation, it taht everything works, nothing works forever. However, there are things that work better than others and there are certain ways to cycle certain things to get better gains. I think people should be encouraged to attempt different things as long as there is validity to it.
and to be honest i really don't see an abundance of these "before and after" photos u speak of about this magic training program. I especially don't see them with natural athletes.
the thing that puts a bad taste in my mouth a bit is that DCers talks about how a "power lifter trains", "look at the thickness of powerlifters". and "the greatest mass gains come from the greateste strenght gains". But the fact of the matter is, they don't train like powerlifters at all. they train similar to Arthur Jones, Mike Mentzer,Viator, and Yates. They view Intensity as Percieved Effort not in terms of mathematics like world class powerlifter or olympic lifter. I trained Mentzer and Dorian style for awhile, it sounded really appealing at the time and it worked a lil in the beginning, more so "on cycle". But other than me feeling like a hardcore bad ass in the gym it ended up doing very little.
I hate to point people out, but Big Heinz is a big believer in HIT training. Mass Monster said people on this board have build lots of Mass with teqhniques ranging from high volume to 1 set to failure. Big H has definately built some mass but how much drugs has he had to take to do that? is he really qualifed to give people training advice just b/c he has mass and is lean? wouldn't any training program work if you took that much steroids and ate 10k a day? I hear Dan Duchaine was very smart but he was very small. Does that mean he was really full of shit and couldn't apply it to himself?NO. thats how i view your comments about waterbury who is getting older and also a natural lifter.he is actually extremely strong, not chump like you are implying. he trains althletes on all levels including professional. I could go to that site and dig through the pages and pull up some amazing transformations with waterbury/Christian Tibadua methods but i'm not going to.
and sadly i see a lot of people looking for advice about how to get started in bodybuilding getting pushed in the direction of these HIT programs.
I remember Vander was getting ridiculed on here not too long ago about how he is doesn't know how to train, high volume this, high volume that, and the reason he makes gains is b/c he has good genes. and if he did low set failure training he would be better.
there seems to be a craze on this board, in that "volume" is what causes over training and that simply is not true in the slightlest bit. its been shown over and over that skelital muscle is the most adaptable thing in the human body. If it wasn't then humans would have died out long long ago.
there are LOTS of factors and in actuality, its this animalistic barbaric massive CNS straining failure training that will cause more overtraining that anything. not to mention how burdensome it becomes after awhile,the risk of muscle tears, and joint problems. for some reason people today, see this need to "train hardcore, and balls wall". they may even site some evidence from a Cheap study. I gurantee you will find way more science,application, and real world results where there is a proper balance between weight, Sets, Reps, CNS fatigue, and frequency. I really don't know how you are saying show me the real world results. I have named many,I could sit here all day and give you real world examples.
I just watched that Jay Cutler video, I know he does pretty high sets, more than i would ever do but i'm not Jay Cutler. IF you watch him train, he's using pretty heavy weight, using pretty damn good form, and pulls up shy of failure, or goes to failure but does not over indulge and hes huge. Is Jay Cutler training wrong? how much weight do you think jay would gain if he stopped his improper training and HIT trained?
I like his saying at the end
"I don't train heavy enough but i'm number two in the fucking world"
Last edited:
PHIL HERNON
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
- Messages
- 14,932
Personally
I would not call what I do "a lot".
hompie said:
I would not call what I do "a lot".
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2003
- Messages
- 4,669
Conan21 said:
Yea we are out there going for the "pump"--LOL---fact:all my opinions are based around progression. I see you go out of your way the last year or two to bash my methods. My answer to you? Simply check the scoreboard. If it didnt work and work extremely well it would of died out long ago (on that little 50 member board) I put it up on 5 years ago--just like every other thing in bodybuilding (HMB, OKG, superslow training, etc )that didnt produce results. Well the opposite happened. Its thousands of peoples posts, hundreds of peoples pics later......again check the scoreboard. Do you see me on pro muscle talking about DC training? Do you see me on any board except IM talking about DC training? I went around the net / muscle mayhem / and all these other boards and asked them to take everything down. So why is so many people still talking about it? Gee maybe it works and works incredibly well for people. After listening to these useless arguments about training on every board for the last 4 years (which changes none of the combatants opinions) my advice to everyone is simple....do your own thing. I never have and never will force my opinions down peoples throats--use deductive reasoning and pick your poison. When i see someone arguing up and down trying to debunk other methods BOOM that tells me that person desperately needs to somehow convince himself thru his ranting that what he is currently doing training wise is the 100% best choice for him....because if there is any bit of doubt whatsoever in his mind--his whole belief system goes to shit. If you want my respect, stop trying to tear other things down to back up that argument in your mind and start producing seeable proof/results (testimonials, pictures, posts) backing your opinions up. Its very easy to sit on a high horse and bitch, its alot more difficult to actually impress people with accomplishments
Sidenote for clarification: 90% of the people I train are clean
Sidenote2: You use Jay Cutler as an example in your post. Jay Cutler within a year and a half of training was competing on the national level--anyone on this message board even close to those kind of genetic gifts?--Jay could of most likely done bowflex training and looked better than 90% of bodybuilders with those kind of genetics.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,080
these are quite possibly some of the longest posts I have ever seen 
That's really all I have to add to this...carry on
That's really all I have to add to this...carry on
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 208
can't and won't speak for dante, but his methods aren't h.i.t. , in my opinion i would not really consider them low volume.
if i train incline bench press and my workout looks like this
135 lbs x 20 reps
185 x 15 reps
225 x 12 reps
275 x 10 reps
315 x 6 reps
that doesn't look like hit one set to failure. i just count the set with 315 as my work set.
love talking and reading about other methods of training, but dante's methods have been proven to work extremely well for a wide range of people (genetic freaks like dave henry - genetically challenged- just average joes like me.)
if i train incline bench press and my workout looks like this
135 lbs x 20 reps
185 x 15 reps
225 x 12 reps
275 x 10 reps
315 x 6 reps
that doesn't look like hit one set to failure. i just count the set with 315 as my work set.
love talking and reading about other methods of training, but dante's methods have been proven to work extremely well for a wide range of people (genetic freaks like dave henry - genetically challenged- just average joes like me.)
I tried very hard
to not bring DC training into this.
It was brough up by others. I never tried to attack the method. i was trying to talk about proven methods and Remos kept saying DC this DC that. I have no desire to debate this training method. If guys like Mel Siff and people who trained olympic athletes and weightlifters for strengh/hypertrophy and all these strenght coaches are wrong then i guess I will take my chances and do the wrong methods.
I could respond with alot of things on to this but it would be a waste of time for both of us and I don't want to get tempers flaring and insults on both ends. I don't know why any time there is a training discussion, people get upset and take it as if you are insulting their mother. I was just talking about training. I have nothing against you and i think you seem like a great guy.
i will say
DC training is nothing like powerlifting. powerlifting methods were not applied to hypertrophy in you method
** (other than the fact you try to lift more weight, which is the basis of every single weightlifting program, even Bo flex training)**
it is a HIT training method that views intensity as percieved effort
i did help coach a local football team in weight lifting and our team took first place in every single lift and they won the overall where they add up the lifts as a whole. this was with 8 different schools. and our kids were the most developed too if you were looking at it on a bodybuilding end of it. The burden of proof is definately not on me. I will admit. anything i've said is not really my methods. I tried to read from the strenght coaches who were held in the highest reguard and copy/apply what they do.
with an ample amount of results still being made by athletes employing some type of volume training. I wouldn't close the book just yet.
back to the orginal scenario of two identical twins.
I would enjoy seeing the difference in gains where one was trained by Gavin Laird, Waturbury and the other one DC trained. where diets were identical in both twins and no drugs were allowed.
and then we could judge LBM,BF%,Strengh in all lifts,speed,etc.
again, i'm not trying to argue and i'm not trying to "bash" your system. I never even brought it up in this thread.
we should probably let this stop here.
to not bring DC training into this.
It was brough up by others. I never tried to attack the method. i was trying to talk about proven methods and Remos kept saying DC this DC that. I have no desire to debate this training method. If guys like Mel Siff and people who trained olympic athletes and weightlifters for strengh/hypertrophy and all these strenght coaches are wrong then i guess I will take my chances and do the wrong methods.
I could respond with alot of things on to this but it would be a waste of time for both of us and I don't want to get tempers flaring and insults on both ends. I don't know why any time there is a training discussion, people get upset and take it as if you are insulting their mother. I was just talking about training. I have nothing against you and i think you seem like a great guy.
i will say
DC training is nothing like powerlifting. powerlifting methods were not applied to hypertrophy in you method
** (other than the fact you try to lift more weight, which is the basis of every single weightlifting program, even Bo flex training)**
it is a HIT training method that views intensity as percieved effort
i did help coach a local football team in weight lifting and our team took first place in every single lift and they won the overall where they add up the lifts as a whole. this was with 8 different schools. and our kids were the most developed too if you were looking at it on a bodybuilding end of it. The burden of proof is definately not on me. I will admit. anything i've said is not really my methods. I tried to read from the strenght coaches who were held in the highest reguard and copy/apply what they do.
with an ample amount of results still being made by athletes employing some type of volume training. I wouldn't close the book just yet.
back to the orginal scenario of two identical twins.
I would enjoy seeing the difference in gains where one was trained by Gavin Laird, Waturbury and the other one DC trained. where diets were identical in both twins and no drugs were allowed.
and then we could judge LBM,BF%,Strengh in all lifts,speed,etc.
again, i'm not trying to argue and i'm not trying to "bash" your system. I never even brought it up in this thread.
we should probably let this stop here.
Last edited:
I'd just like to say, I've spent the last hour digesting this post, some very interesting views........thanks to Phil for bringing a quality thread into fruition Alot of what Conan says makes sense & I for one am gonna give the 10x3 thing a go........starting next week in fact!
On the subject of CP Principles, I have used a few of the methods he preaches. Had no success with the GVT training at all really but had some very good results with the super-slow techniques. Never had chance to check out DC's style of training in full, only ever read about the stretches which I have to say the pec ones have worked very well for me.
Keep up the excellent work all
Alot of what Conan says makes sense & I for one am gonna give the 10x3 thing a go........starting next week in fact!On the subject of CP Principles, I have used a few of the methods he preaches. Had no success with the GVT training at all really but had some very good results with the super-slow techniques. Never had chance to check out DC's style of training in full, only ever read about the stretches which I have to say the pec ones have worked very well for me.
Keep up the excellent work all
PHIL HERNON
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
- Messages
- 14,932
Not yet
Not yet I havent. I believe inroads can be done at lower sets, but I feel CONAN@21 is on to something here.
hompie said:
Not yet I havent. I believe inroads can be done at lower sets, but I feel CONAN@21 is on to something here.
Phil
10 X 3 is definatley not an end all method. But i do think it is a great tool and extremely effective. I would advise people to follow "Principles" more so than programs. when you understand some of these exercise principles you can make your own programs, or it allows you to recognzie a valid program when you see one.
just to go over the facts about the 10 X 3 again though. in case people did not read the articles i posted.
1. when you use a load between. 80%-85% of your 1Rep Max full Fiber recruitment occurs with every single Repitition.
2. When you don't Train to failure, you minimize Central Nervous System Fatigue (the key element in over training).
3. The number of Reps will always dictate the sets. I think alot of people may look at this and say "HOLY SHIT....10 Sets?". but realize you are doing low reps sub failure. what if i said to do 3 sets of 10? you wouldn't really think that was weird at all. You have to think outside the box. it all equates to volume. (thats why i get confused when i hear people say I do "low Volume", volume does not mean the number of sets. volume = reps X sets x weight...and rest times is also a factor you need to consider when you look at volume b/c your doing that work within a given amount of time.
4. So when use a heavy weight, and you keep the sets breif, your getting right to those motor units that have the most potential for growth right off the bat from the first rep of the first set and minimising the amount of Central Nervous System Fatigue as much as possible throughout the workout.
how can one really say that a protocol that maximizes Fiber reqruitement and muscle fatigue and simultaniously minimizes CNS fatigue (the main reason for over training) is a bad workout to follow? and on top of that it will help build up your strenght (as well as size) so that when you go back to reps of 10, 12 or whatever you will be stronger and be able to lift more weigth.
if you don't know your 1 Rep max. chose a weight you can do 6 perfect reps with without siking yourself up. if your just starting this, I would advise to go too light instead of too heavy and if you under estimate your weight do an extra set or two. its good to rememeber that volume in terms of sets is not the enemy. (you can produce overload by adding adding weight, doing and extra set, or decreasing rest times).
60 - 90 seconds rest between sets. I like to use 70.
Don't judge the workout by the pump. Sometimes you'll get it big time, sometimes not as much.
but the next day your chest will feel swollen,thick,dense, and tight.
instead of promoting "low volume training" or "high Volume" training. Whatever that means anyway? Why not promote Sensible Training.
10 X 3 is definatley not an end all method. But i do think it is a great tool and extremely effective. I would advise people to follow "Principles" more so than programs. when you understand some of these exercise principles you can make your own programs, or it allows you to recognzie a valid program when you see one.
just to go over the facts about the 10 X 3 again though. in case people did not read the articles i posted.
1. when you use a load between. 80%-85% of your 1Rep Max full Fiber recruitment occurs with every single Repitition.
2. When you don't Train to failure, you minimize Central Nervous System Fatigue (the key element in over training).
3. The number of Reps will always dictate the sets. I think alot of people may look at this and say "HOLY SHIT....10 Sets?". but realize you are doing low reps sub failure. what if i said to do 3 sets of 10? you wouldn't really think that was weird at all. You have to think outside the box. it all equates to volume. (thats why i get confused when i hear people say I do "low Volume", volume does not mean the number of sets. volume = reps X sets x weight...and rest times is also a factor you need to consider when you look at volume b/c your doing that work within a given amount of time.
4. So when use a heavy weight, and you keep the sets breif, your getting right to those motor units that have the most potential for growth right off the bat from the first rep of the first set and minimising the amount of Central Nervous System Fatigue as much as possible throughout the workout.
how can one really say that a protocol that maximizes Fiber reqruitement and muscle fatigue and simultaniously minimizes CNS fatigue (the main reason for over training) is a bad workout to follow? and on top of that it will help build up your strenght (as well as size) so that when you go back to reps of 10, 12 or whatever you will be stronger and be able to lift more weigth.
if you don't know your 1 Rep max. chose a weight you can do 6 perfect reps with without siking yourself up. if your just starting this, I would advise to go too light instead of too heavy and if you under estimate your weight do an extra set or two. its good to rememeber that volume in terms of sets is not the enemy. (you can produce overload by adding adding weight, doing and extra set, or decreasing rest times).
60 - 90 seconds rest between sets. I like to use 70.
Don't judge the workout by the pump. Sometimes you'll get it big time, sometimes not as much.
but the next day your chest will feel swollen,thick,dense, and tight.
instead of promoting "low volume training" or "high Volume" training. Whatever that means anyway? Why not promote Sensible Training.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Messages
- 125
Conan, some of your observations are very similar to my own when I was doing exclusively low rep sets. I would take a weight that I could crank 8 reps with, but would stop at five and would essentially double the number of sets I did with it. In that line of thinking:
typical workout
6 sets of 10 reps per set = 60 reps and some pretty heavy fatigue at the end of the sets
Non typical low rep workout:
12 sets of 5 reps per set = 60 reps with very little fatique. I kept the rest low to about 60 seconds per set on some bodyparts, others (like legs or if I was doing deads that day) would go up to two minutes.
Point is, I made my best progress by leaving a lot of reps in the tank. It was about continually trying to improve the numbers, whether that mean adding weight, or doing more sets.
Also: I varied the number of sets on a workout to workout basis. Some workouts was only 6 sets of 5 for chest, the next was 10, maybe after that back down to 8, then go for the gusto and crack out 16-20 sets. But notice this: even if I did 20 sets of 5, that's still "only" 100 reps. Many bbers do that in the course of 9 sets with an average rep number of 11 per set.
The difference? I was able to use greater weight with the low rep effort, thereby creating more tension in my chest than using a lighter weight or a barely eeked out and CNS fatiguing 12 reps.
I'm not dropping an elbow on high reps, mind you, as I use them every other week now for joint health. But just stating that I had some pretty good results with low reps.
typical workout
6 sets of 10 reps per set = 60 reps and some pretty heavy fatigue at the end of the sets
Non typical low rep workout:
12 sets of 5 reps per set = 60 reps with very little fatique. I kept the rest low to about 60 seconds per set on some bodyparts, others (like legs or if I was doing deads that day) would go up to two minutes.
Point is, I made my best progress by leaving a lot of reps in the tank. It was about continually trying to improve the numbers, whether that mean adding weight, or doing more sets.
Also: I varied the number of sets on a workout to workout basis. Some workouts was only 6 sets of 5 for chest, the next was 10, maybe after that back down to 8, then go for the gusto and crack out 16-20 sets. But notice this: even if I did 20 sets of 5, that's still "only" 100 reps. Many bbers do that in the course of 9 sets with an average rep number of 11 per set.
The difference? I was able to use greater weight with the low rep effort, thereby creating more tension in my chest than using a lighter weight or a barely eeked out and CNS fatiguing 12 reps.
I'm not dropping an elbow on high reps, mind you, as I use them every other week now for joint health. But just stating that I had some pretty good results with low reps.
IRON MAN said:Awesome info here guys..
I've been training for right at 30 years now so I'll throw my gas onto this firey thread.
It really doesnt matter what training approach you decide to use, whether it be the 10x3, dc style, Bill Pearl routines, Phils low set training, or Vanders very high rep training. One thing remains the same. Which one works best for you in the end??? ONLY YOU CAN KNOW!!!!!!
1st: Find which style of training works best for "your" particular body and use it as a mainstay. The human body is a very complex machine and "everyone" is gonna respond differently to various exercises, sets, reps, days per week of training, diets, drugs, intensity, etc.
2nd: Cycle your workouts with less affective training methods to break barriers. For example I grow best from doing 5 sets per body part in the 6 to 8 rep range to right at failure twice per week on a 3 to 4 day split but after 4 weeks my body becomes used to the same ole stiumli thus requiring me to make a drastic change. I dont necessarily like the change ( breaking away from my comfort zone) but its needed none the less. On the less affective routines "for my particular body" I use them for no more than 2 weeks at a time before jumping right back into my most productive 5 sets twice per week routine.. Therefore I am rotating ever 4 weeks keeping my muscles-body off balance and break the ever so dreaded boredom of doing the same thing day in day out. IT WORKS!!!!!!!
I also rotate the less affective routines. For example. After the 1st month of doing the most productive routine I will switch over to a high volume-low intenstity routine like Bill Pearl suggest. Next time around I'll do the 10x3 program-lower intensity for 2 weeks at a time. Then its off to rest-pause-dc training-high intensity or Phils low set-high intensity method for two weeks the next time around.
Note: I have learned like Art Atwood that it's best to never use more than one exercise per body part in any one training sessions. I generally rotate a compound exercises with an isolation exercises. But, on occasion I'll do 2 exercises per body part.
Now if my body responded best to the DC training or Phils training methods, I would use it for 4 weeks then switch over to something like Bill Pearls routine or the 10x3 training for 2 weeks and then back to the dc-phil method.
It's called cycling your workouts to best suit (YOUR NEEDS) not the trainers next to you. I hope this helps
Iron Man , and do you train the whole body in 2 days. Do you keep the weight the same for those 5 sets?
hompie said:
I do train the whole body in two days using an eod program in pre-contest mode for the most part but not always.
Day one: Chest, lats, shoulders,traps- only 3 sets
Day two: rest
Day three: Bi's ,tri's, quads, hams- only 2 sets, calves.
Day four : rest
Day five: Chest, lats, shoulders, traps, and so forth
I use a reverse pyramiding scheme..After 2 light warm up sets I start out with the heaveist weight I can handle for the 1 st which is generally 8 reps. By the 2nd set I can only do 7 reps. By the 3rd set its generally 5 to 6 reps. Next I start stripping the weight down for set 4 and 5 to allow for at the completion of at least 6 repetitions.
Once I hit 9 or 10 reps on my first set I know its time to increase the weight a bit next time around on that particular exercises.
Off season for building pure mass/strength I use this method: http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13774
Last edited:
Similar threads
Members online
- heavyhitter
- qbkilla
- Palifter
- Vanilla Thunder
- saltseeker
- Vmv004
- socialdfan
- Juice87
- In2an3
- hevi-head
- Dlrob27
- Itachii
- P30LEM
- Mufasa123
- Quadlife
- juggy38
- SB Labs
- bananas007
- btails
- xjpx
- MOVINI711
- Stayfit
- sciroxx-lab
- bigjim6775
- plsresmeihaveraygun
- slesh
- svenrpb
- dxteran
- oxandrin
- Heath82
- Tank211
- Chembody
- Lift2staysane
- granabolic
- Yousef12O2
- traininsane11
- Sam805
- dany23x
- Doitagain
- Biggerp73
- kscowboy
- Aikman56
- DetroitDawg
- QECon34144
- yotty
- Kits4less
- juiceball44
- Gunsmith
- Durro
- sandiego_2008
Forum statistics
