There's no such thing as a bodybuilding program!

[Fadi]

How many of you here believe that a bodybuilding program/routine of some sort does exist somewhere with someone? I'm talking about something on a piece of paper that says: "bodybuilding program X best for muscle hypertrophy". Then from there, discussions/arguments begin as to the merit of such a program.

Let us take a step back and think about this for a moment if you would.

You need to ask yourself a very serious question here: what is bodybuilding, or rather what is muscle building / muscle hypertrophy? I mean does a program even exist anywhere in the world for muscle hypertrophy? The correct (and to some) shocking answer is no, it most certainly does not! Huh, then what does?! Muscle hypertrophy is a side effect of a particular way of training and not a direct effect of some muscle building program, because as I just mentioned, such a program/routine does not (and has never) existed, ever!

You can train for strength, where you place much focus on your CNS, or you can train for metabolic stress, where you place much focus on the muscle cells (as opposed to focusing on your nervous system). You can take it even a step further as Olympic weightlifters do (and as I have done before), and place most of your focus on training for neuromuscular efficiency, where your body learns to behave and respond like a chimpanzee or a gorilla (more on that later if need be).

In a nutshell, CNS adaptation style training should be left for lifters whose main aim is to lift huge weights...,bodybuilders do not and have not (ever) fitted into this lifting category, period!

Hey Fadi, you're plain wrong and my bodybuilding program proves that, look!

Well let's have a look at what is viewed as the bodybuilding norm shall we...

Training in the so called bodybuilding range of (say) 8-12 reps, does build huge muscles (I admit), but not because there's something magical about the 8-12 range itself, but because of the style the bodybuilder uses when he applies such a repetition range. An example here is the short rest period between sets, which in turn places a tremendous amount of metabolic stress on the muscular system. The side effect to this style of training? An increase in muscle fiber size. So as you can now see, it was not the 8-12 range that did it, but the metabolic stress that the muscles were placed under that gave you those results. The question now should be: under what other circumstances can I achieve this metabolic stress? The answer is through muscular fatigue that is achieved when performing "light" weights with high reps. Light is a relative term, please never lose sight of that fact. I'll leave it here for now.

 

[Jungnaut]

How interesting! So short rest time between sets is the main contributor to metabolic stress from which muscle fibre can increase size. So if a trainee spent his time between sets facebooking, then no matter what the rep range his metabolic stress would be low hence he is not going to get that there (optimum) gains?
And really, should a fixed time between sets be the best variable to consider here, or would it be better to look instead at how long it takes for the heart rate to recover from it's chest popping max to the median (or starting) point?

 

[Fadi]

How interesting! So short rest time between sets is the main contributor to metabolic stress from which muscle fibre can increase size. So if a trainee spent his time between sets facebooking, then no matter what the rep range his metabolic stress would be low hence he is not going to get that there (optimum) gains?
And really, should a fixed time between sets be the best variable to consider here, or would it be better to look instead at how long it takes for the heart rate to recover from it's chest popping max to the median (or starting) point?

Please note that I presented the time between sets as one example and an illustration to clarify a point. No where did I say that rest time between sets was the main contributer to metabolic stress. I could have presented you with GVT, and here we have what we call accumaltive stress due to the high number of sets performed. You're on the right track though Jungnaut.

Let's take your point into consideration and see what we can come up with. You mentionrd a trainee spending time facebooking between sets (taking a long rest in between sets in other words), and hence not acheiving what you yourself righly called "optimum gains". You're 100% correct.

We've all heard of the word intensity. Unfortunately some of us still associate that word with heavy loads on the bar. If one trainee took 30-60 seconds between sets, as opposed to our facebooking trainee taking (say) 5 minutes of rest, then it would be obvious who would be applying high intensity to his training and who is not. This intensity (this time) woud be coming based on metabolic stress instead of mechanical tension, and yes, there is a difference.

 

[Fister Roboto]

I'd love to know how much a gorilla could deadlift.

You could probably set up a simple experiment with a bar and a force meter. Then you condition the gorilla to know that the more force it exerts the more bananas it gets.

Phase 3: Profit

 

[Goosey]

I'd love to know how much a gorilla could deadlift.

You could probably set up a simple experiment with a bar and a force meter. Then you condition the gorilla to know that the more force it exerts the more bananas it gets.

Phase 3: Profit

damn good question, I reckon the gorilla would be neurologically superior but as far as workouts are concerned I reckon it could not tolerate your standard bodybuilding split.

it would more likely be what Fadi outlines, and the rest between workouts would be much much longer.

 

[El Testicle]

Was thinking of this..

Could the stress / intensity be kept to a satisfactory state by lifting heavier weights, but having longer rest periods?

I find myself that when I do try and move more weight I simply need to have a longer break in between to fully recover. I guess this would be the opposite of doing relatively lighter weights/higher reps with shorter rest periods.

So in effect, the outcome could be the same as the intensity is still kept to a higher level, albeit with longer rest periods?

 

[Goosey]

Great post fadi.

metabolic conditioning has fascinated me for many years, I've done this style of workout for many years.

in order to produce the third level of condition, the previously mentioned metabolic condition, it is absolutely necessary to train in this fashion. It is necessary to train in a fashion that will unavoidably produce rapid and large-scale increases in strength, in cardiovascular condition, and in metabolic condition.


Working muscles to a point of momentary failure while maintaining both the pulse rate and breathing at very high levels throughout the entire workout is extremely difficult to do for the neophyte the time between exercise is say 1 to two minutes.
And, since it was impossible for the beginning trainee to work in this fashion, it is thus obvious after time, working at this rate, decreasing time between exercises, and showing progression in weight lifted that something besides strength and cardiovascular ability has been improved... the subject has also greatly improved his metabolic ability.




Your capacity for "work" has gone to another level.

 

[Goosey]

Was thinking of this..

Could the stress / intensity be kept to a satisfactory state by lifting heavier weights, but having longer rest periods?

I find myself that when I do try and move more weight I simply need to have a longer break in between to fully recover. I guess this would be the opposite of doing relatively lighter weights/higher reps with shorter rest periods.

So in effect, the outcome could be the same as the intensity is still kept to a higher level, albeit with longer rest periods?

if ones sole purpose is to biuld muscle tissue, then you would lift as much weight as possible And rest as long as practical, this is what we all tend to agree on.

Muscular strength can be built to a very high level with little or no improvement in cardiovascular ability.

And it is well established that the exercises and activities that have traditionally been used for the improvement of cardiovascular condition will do almost nothing in the way of increasing muscular strength; in fact, it frequently happens that cardiovascular training actually produces a loss in muscular strength.
but a level of aerobic condition improves your ability to produce force.

Combining the two produces a third level of conditioning we know as metabolic, or METCON.

 

[0ni]

Not true
My shoulders grow like weeds and I do zero progressive overload for them
I just get a brutal pump in them once a week after I deadlift

Kai Greene also says the same, just get the blood into the area for long enough and you'll grow
Of course progressive overload does work and is obviously best

But to say that strength needs to increase is just wrong

 

[Jungnaut]

We've all heard of the word intensity. Unfortunately some of us still associate that word with heavy loads on the bar. If one trainee took 30-60 seconds between sets, as opposed to our facebooking trainee taking (say) 5 minutes of rest, then it would be obvious who would be applying high intensity to his training and who is not. This intensity (this time) woud be coming based on metabolic stress instead of mechanical tension, and yes, there is a difference.

Muscular strength can be built to a very high level with little or no improvement in cardiovascular ability.
but a level of aerobic condition improves your ability to produce force.
Combining the two produces a third level of conditioning we know as metabolic, or METCON.

So that's why training templates have heavy loads built in, followed by back off sets with little rest time. METCON!

A stopwatch with a friendly little beep at the one minute mark is my best friend at the gym these days.

I have always been perplexed as to why my aerobic conditioning has suffered in the past 3 years despite being stronger, compared to when I used to long distance jogging for exercise. Now I know.

 

[Goosey]

Not true
My shoulders grow like weeds and I do zero progressive overload for them
I just get a brutal pump in them once a week after I deadlift

Kai Greene also says the same, just get the blood into the area for long enough and you'll grow
Of course progressive overload does work and is obviously best

But to say that strength needs to increase is just wrong

What's "not true" Knackers?


Kai Greene also says the same, just get the blood into the area for long enough and you'll grow
Of course progressive overload does work and is obviously best

Blood's already there, you mean volume?
If that's the case, then full range mechanical work as opposed to isometric contraction will stimulate growth more efficiently.
In the case of the shoulders, you got to find a movement that is safe.
Shoulder presses work for some, and a disaster for others.

Tricky thing the shoulder, the agonist and antagonist muscles around the joint really need to be equal.

 

[Goosey]

So that's why training templates have heavy loads built in, followed by back off sets with little rest time. METCON!

A stopwatch with a friendly little beep at the one minute mark is my best friend at the gym these days.

I have always been perplexed as to why my aerobic conditioning has suffered in the past 3 years despite being stronger, compared to when I used to long distance jogging for exercise. Now I know.

Good stuff

Imagine this;

if I was to ask you to do;
To fatigue
All equipment set-up ready to go
No rest, this workout using the same weight throughout the workout (you know what weight on the bar is required);

Squat x 20 rep's
Pull-down x 12
Bench press x 12
Leg-press x 15
Chin-up x max (fatigue)
Shoulder press x 10
Leg-press x 12
Pull-down x 8
Dip x 8

controlled cadence, no rest.

When you first try this workout you'll collapse after the chin-ups
Second attempt (the following week) you'll possibly get through this but the time between exercises will be too long and youll complete the workout in around 20 minutes and you'll collapse on the floor.

6 months later...

You've managed to reduce the time between sets to 4 seconds, maintained that rep cadence and double the weight used on the machines and able to complete that same workout in 12 minutes.


How much much stronger would you be?

 

[Goosey]

You'd look like a gorilla, and feel fuckin electric.

 

[Fadi]

I'd love to know how much a gorilla could deadlift.

Actually (for me), it wasn't about how much a gorilla could deadlift, but rather the ability for that gorilla to call upon its entire muscular system to generate power at will. That's what the Olympic weightlifter's program is centered around; training for neuromuscular efficiency. We humans have to train our nervous system day in and day out to become so efficient, so as to respond in an instant when we want to say, snatch a weight off the platform in a split second. That's called applying maximum muscle fiber recruitment to a lift. The weightlifter who can recruit the most muscle fiber in that split second, would generate the most power and end up with a successful lift overhead, (proper lifting technique withstanding of course). The way we train for neuromuscular efficiency is achieved by lifting in the rep range of 1-3, with percentage of one's 1RM ranging between 80% (light), to about 110-115% using assistance/supplementary lifts.

 

[Fadi]

Was thinking of this..

Could the stress / intensity be kept to a satisfactory state by lifting heavier weights, but having longer rest periods?

I find myself that when I do try and move more weight I simply need to have a longer break in between to fully recover. I guess this would be the opposite of doing relatively lighter weights/higher reps with shorter rest periods.

So in effect, the outcome could be the same as the intensity is still kept to a higher level, albeit with longer rest periods?

Yes you are right. When lifting heavy with low/lower reps, you are in fact applying mechanical tension as opposed to metabolic stress. The destination is the same but the road travelled differs. And as you know, not every road is the same, some are smooth and some are bumpy to a degree. So there would be advantages and disadvantages depending on which road you decide to travel on.

 

[Rugby88]

[MENTION=1]Admin[/MENTION] ;

 

[jzpowahz]

I'd love to know how much a gorilla could deadlift.

You could probably set up a simple experiment with a bar and a force meter. Then you condition the gorilla to know that the more force it exerts the more bananas it gets.

Phase 3: Profit

found this

"It's a lot easier to get a chimp in roller skates than it is to get him to pump iron--hence, most of the data on chimp strength is anecdotal and decidedly unscientific. In tests at the Bronx Zoo in 1924, a dynamometer--a scale that measures the mechanical force of a pull on a spring--was erected in the monkey house. A 165-pound male chimpanzee named "Boma" registered a pull of 847 pounds, using only his right hand (although he did have his feet braced against the wall, being somewhat hip, in his simian way, to the principles of leverage). A 165-pound man, by comparison, could manage a one-handed pull of about 210 pounds. Even more frightening, a female chimp, weighing a mere 135 pounds and going by the name of Suzette, checked in with a one-handed pull of 1,260 pounds. (She was in a fit of passion at the time; one shudders to think what her boyfriend must have looked like next morning.) In dead lifts, chimps have been known to manage weights of 600 pounds without even breaking into a sweat. A male gorilla could probably heft an 1,800-pound weight and not think twice about it."

 

[Darkoz]

I've read more than once that they reckon an ape has about 5 times the strength of a human and going by what's written above, that seems to be about right

 

[Fadi]

The Great Ape, it’s more about muscle control.

Okay so what is it that makes these apes so much stronger than we are? One possible explanation is that great apes simply have more powerful muscles than us. Sure, but that may only be part of the story.

Our nervous systems exert more control over our muscles. Our fine motor control prevents great feats of strength, but allows us to perform delicate and uniquely human tasks.

Chimps have much less grey matter in their spinal cords than humans have. Spinal grey matter contains large numbers of motor neurons—nerves cells that connect to muscle fibers and regulate muscle movement.

More grey matter in humans means more motor neurons, leading tomore muscle control. Our surplus motor neurons allow us to engage smaller portions ofour muscles at any given time. We can engage just a few muscle fibers for delicate tasks like threading a needle, and progressively more for tasks that require more force. Conversely, since chimps have fewer motor neurons, each neuron triggers a higher number of muscle fibers. So using a muscle becomes more of an all-or-nothing proposition for chimps. As a result, chimps often endup using more muscle than they need.

Great apes, with their all-or-nothing muscle usage, are explosive sprinters, climbers and fighters, but not nearly as good at complex motor tasks. I’ve written before about how the sport of Olympic weightlifting is a sport of the nervous system rather than the musculature system. Training day in and day out using ultra low repetitions teaches our nervous system to have better neuromuscular efficiency than if we trained using reps as high (not as low) as 4 and 5. Hence, our training is dominated by the 1s, 2s and (3 reps as being the high rep of the low range).

In addition to fine motor control, Walker suspects that humans also may have a neural limit to how much muscle we use at one time. Only under very rare circumstances are these limits bypassed—as in the anecdotal reportsof people able to lift cars to free trapped crash victims.

"Add to this the effect of severe electric shock, where people are often thrown violently by their own extreme muscle contraction, andit is clear that we do not contract all our muscle fibers at once," Walker writes. "So there might be a degree of cerebral inhibition in people that prevents them from damaging their muscular system that is not present, or not present to the same degree, in great apes."

Walker says that testing his hypothesis that humans have moremotor neurons would be fairly straightforward. However, he concedes that testing whether humans have increased muscle inhibition could be a bit more problematic.


Alan Walker is an evolutionary biologist and a professor at PennState University.

 

[Fister Roboto]

Fuck me that's nuts!