Think about this one

[IRON MAN]

Now to answers Phil's question: The twin taking the 2 sets to failure would be the leanest in theory but if high volume where involved it would be the other way around because taking every set to failure with high volume would deplete the CNS thus causing muscle loss and fat gain. Again only in theory.

On the other, doing high volume with a routine like Bill Pearls style of training would lead to a leaner physique in comparison to super low volume- heavy duty training style due to more work being done. Only in theory

Now for the "true" answer to Phils intriguing question: Both twins will look (identical) regardless of how they train!!!! Anyone who has watched twins grow up and train know what I'm talking about here.

It doesn't matter whether they train to failure or stop just shy of faliure, they will grow at the same rate.

 

[hompie]

I do train the whole body in two days using an eod program.

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.

Thanks...........

 

[IRON MAN]

? for Phil

Phil,

What if we turned the tables with the identical twins. Made it a high volume workout instead of a low volume one. One twin trains to failure while the other one trains only to the point of difficulty.

Which twin do you think would be the largest and/or leanest with such a routine?

Again my answer would be they will look the same!!!

 

[mr. boom]

this twin

I think the one who learns how to feel the muscle stretch and contract and has a better feel for each muscle will have the more mature looking muscles.

 

[IRON MAN]

Phil where are you????

Phil,

Did I get the answer right big guy?

 

[SDMan]

Phil begged a question about training frequency way up thread (#19) and I don't think I saw an answer to it (though I haven't taken the time to read the more detailed posts, but have it on my schedule). I've been using the HST program and think I've had more results training short of failure and training more frequently. The theory being, as I understand it, is that if you keep your workouts short and your sets short of failure, you will stimulate growth and both your muscles and cns will be ready to go again within 48 hours. Constantly training to failure will tax your cns more than your muscles, and any growth stimulated by training will be lost by the time your cns is recovered. Two key elements to HST are an obligatory increase in weights each workout, and a scheduled layoff every 6-8 weeks for "strategic deconditioning." My workout is a full-body routine, every other day, consisting of 1-2 exercises per bodypart, about ten exercises total, stopping a rep or two short of failure. Every two weeks, the reps per set drops - 15 reps the first two weeks, 10 the second, 5 the third (this is the when I notice the most growth), then a week or two of negatives, then 10-12 days off. During the 10 rep "macro cycle", I split the workout in half and do am and pm workouts.

The use of two week macro cycles is to reduce 'repeated bout effect' and create a new environment for your muscles to adapt to. But based on some of what I've read in this thread, the first two weeks of 15 reps might be inadvisable - if it is true that higher reps 'convert' type II muscle fibers to type I.

Based on this theory, I would answer Phils question this way. The twin that trains with 6-8 reps and stops short of failure would have the better ie. bigger physique, especially if he continuously increases weights. I think that either one could have the more lean physique, depending more on diet than training.

 

[PHIL HERNON]

Mmm

Phil,

What if we turned the tables with the identical twins. Made it a high volume workout instead of a low volume one. One twin trains to failure while the other one trains only to the point of difficulty.

Which twin do you think would be the largest and/or leanest with such a routine?

Again my answer would be they will look the same!!!

In this case, the one that trained to failure would be leaner.

 

[PHIL HERNON]

Nice

Phil begged a question about training frequency way up thread (#19) and I don't think I saw an answer to it (though I haven't taken the time to read the more detailed posts, but have it on my schedule). I've been using the HST program and think I've had more results training short of failure and training more frequently. The theory being, as I understand it, is that if you keep your workouts short and your sets short of failure, you will stimulate growth and both your muscles and cns will be ready to go again within 48 hours. Constantly training to failure will tax your cns more than your muscles, and any growth stimulated by training will be lost by the time your cns is recovered. Two key elements to HST are an obligatory increase in weights each workout, and a scheduled layoff every 6-8 weeks for "strategic deconditioning." My workout is a full-body routine, every other day, consisting of 1-2 exercises per bodypart, about ten exercises total, stopping a rep or two short of failure. Every two weeks, the reps per set drops - 15 reps the first two weeks, 10 the second, 5 the third (this is the when I notice the most growth), then a week or two of negatives, then 10-12 days off. During the 10 rep "macro cycle", I split the workout in half and do am and pm workouts.

The use of two week macro cycles is to reduce 'repeated bout effect' and create a new environment for your muscles to adapt to. But based on some of what I've read in this thread, the first two weeks of 15 reps might be inadvisable - if it is true that higher reps 'convert' type II muscle fibers to type I.

Based on this theory, I would answer Phils question this way. The twin that trains with 6-8 reps and stops short of failure would have the better ie. bigger physique, especially if he continuously increases weights. I think that either one could have the more lean physique, depending more on diet than training.

Good observation.

 

[TooPowerful4u]

ok im being lazy and dont want to read all the posts. can somebody give me a verdict here?

Ok it pretty much seems obvious you all suggest training bodyparts more than 1x per week. Now are you saying its best to do 10 sets heavy stopping short of failure, or 1 set to extreme failure? How do you feel about doing high rep isolation and pumping the muscle full of blood after these main sets?

 

[IRON MAN]

In this case, the one that trained to failure would be leaner.

Phil,

How can you draw these consclusions if they are identical twins?

I also agree that training to failure would build a leaner physique in general but when your dealing with "identical twins" does this rule apply?

Heres why I ask; We had two identical twins in our local gym and you'd rarely see them train together but they appeared to be equal in their musculature because of their genetics "not" their weight training methods per se.

NOTE: One twin was a swimmer while the other one played football yet they both looked and weighed identical. It was the darndest sight to behold. Their names where Ronnie and Donnie and It was virtutally impossible to tell them apart. Both twins had this nervous habit of batting their eyes but Ronnie more so, and thats the only way I could tell them apart.I know for a fact they switched girl friends one night, had sex with the other ones girl and actually got by with it until word got back to them...

 

[terryd5150]

Reading this thread made my brain hurt!

 

[TJB]

Excellent - Excellent - excellent

I read almost every word. Fantastic discussion on real world traiining. My eyes/brain are fried from reading on this board today.


Bump for sure...

 

[anthony roberts]

The one who stopped before he failed would be, in general, a person who I would never want on any team I coached, and wouldn't want as a client as a trainer, either. I don't like working with athletes unless they bring more heart than Hallmark on Valentines day.

 

[Conan21]

Strange view point.

Why would you judge an athlete on whether he trained to failure or not?
Would that mean he would not play hard in the game?
What exactly is failure? It doesn't have a universal definition.

why not judge the athlete based on Sports Specific skills and General Physical Preparedness factors such as Strength, size, speed,endurance. etc?

Perhaps the athlete chooses not to do Mike Mentzer failure because it gives him better gains. How does that correlate into having no heart? Could he still not play like a wild man on the field?

Unfortunately, many coaches "PUNISH" their athletes, instead of "Training" them.

 

[Vegeta]

Whats the benifit of reading to falure ? Damn my eyes hurt ! LOL ! Seriously this is a great thread ! Makes you think .Thanks Phil !

 

[Murada]

The Barbarian Brothers (Peter Paul & David Paul) would be good ones to ask this question to, I'm sure they didn't always train the same way as the other.

 

[secret_whispers]

This is way to hard to answer... I would go with the third person... He trains to failure on and off, and stops 1 rep short on and off...

 

[FK86]

Bump

And I'll throw in my question of: Do you think one can utilize the methods of a low volume workout where failure is typically the goal, stop one rep short, and reap the benefits? Or does by keeping that one rep in the tank force the trainee to have to perform 5 or 6 work sets of an exercise to get the same effect?