No matter how thorough training
instruction is, it's impossible to
include all caveats and
exceptions. Individual variation can be
considerable, not only in muscle size
potential, but in terms of age, innate
recovery ability, tolerance of exercise,
satisfaction of the components of
recovery, training intensity, volume
& frequency, gym facilities, training
experience, exercise form, motivation,
goals, general lifestyle, work
commitments, etc.
A given training
program can be applied by two
individuals and the implementation &
effect be very different. A program is a
mere list of exercises, reps, sets and
workout days.
Training Intensity
In my own writing, and that of some
others, there have been cautionary
words concerning ultra-high-intensity
training. A recommendation is
sometimes given to train a rep or two
short of total failure. This can be terrible
advice for some people, since what they
think is failure is already a rep or two or
three or more short of it. If these people
cut back on their "intensity" by a rep or
two, they will further compromise their
ability to progress.
The recommendation to train a rep or
two short of failure, rather than go "balls
to the wall," applies only to people who
truly know what failure is, and can
accurately determine that they are
training a rep or two short of it. Because
I can't witness you train, I can't assess
whether or not you're accurately
determining this. Here's where a hands-on
personal coach can be so valuable-
he/she can see if a trainee is doing what
should be done. It's one thing to receive
advice, but whether it's put into practice
is something else.
Urging people to train as hard as they
possibly can, with no holding back
whatsoever, has real merit because it
allows no margin for slacking. (Few
trainees work to true failure unless a
knowledgeable supervisor directs them.)
But at least each would attempt to go all
the way. When, however, a
recommendation is given to stop a rep or
two short of failure, it gives trainees an
escape from all-the-way training even
before they pick up a weight.
I recommend that you experiment
with your training in a sensible way. One
of the variables to experiment with is
exercise intensity. Experiment with
training to failure, and training slightly
short of failure.
Things become complicated because
there are many variables beyond exercise
intensity that can account for results.
Training to failure might be the most
productive format for some people
providing that the volume and frequency
of exercise are appropriate, and recovery
is optimal.
Just a bit too much volume, or
a bit too much training frequency, may
undo the potential good of the very-highintensity
work. All that may be needed to make the very-high-intensity training
work is to abbreviate workouts
sufficiently, and not hit each exercise
quite so often.
Some people, however,
give up on very-high-intensity training
and conclude it doesn't work for them
when, in fact, it was their specific
implementation of it that was amiss.
If you already train short of failure,
then cutting back further is unlikely to
help you, and in fact will probably lead
to regression. Hard training is a
necessity, but just because "hard" is
good, that doesn't necessarily mean that
"hardest" is best.
Training Volume
While some trainees have been guilty of
over-abbreviating their training program,
and cutting back too far on exercises and
sets for them (relative to their training
intensity and volume, recovery ability,
genetics, etc.), the response of some
trainees to the possibility of their having
cut back too far, has been to add too
much work (extra sets and/or exercises)
and thus unabbreviate their programs.
Thus they go from one non-working
program to another. It's somewhere
between the two markers that the best
solution is to be found.
This thinking, however, strictly
applies to people who have already
adopted abbreviated training. For almost
everyone else, out in the mainstream,
training will already be excessive in
terms of volume and need cutting back,
not expanding.
Training Frequency
Some people who have adopted
abbreviated training have cut back on
their training frequency too far, at least
too far relative to the intensity and
volume they are using. Had, for
example, they been training harder, then
perhaps the lesser training frequency
may be more effective.
While it seems to be easier, at least
for some people, to build strength on
infrequent training schedules where a
given exercise or bodypart is trained
less often than once a week, many
people seem to need a bit more
frequency-twice every 7-10 days or
so per bodypart, though not necessarily
the same frequency for each area-in
order to produce muscle growth.
While a bit more training frequency may be
good for some trainees, at least for
those who want additional muscular
size, if you overdo it you'll be back to
square one. That's the danger-there
can be a fine line between too much and
enough, and then a further fine line
between enough and too little.
What To Do
Genetically typical and drug-free
trainees don't have a capacity for a lot of
weight training if they want to make
good progress. Abbreviated training
programs will always be necessary, but
just what's "abbreviated" can vary
considerably. Do too little and you may
stimulate no progress. Do too much-
too much for you, that is-and you'll
also make no progress.
Because to some degree training
volume, intensity and frequency can
offset one another, the same abbreviated
program can have different effects on
different people according to how the
three variables are manipulated and how
the factors of individual variation come
into play. A bit more training frequency
may make a given training intensity
produce better progress; or, an extra set
or two per exercise may produce better
progress; or a set or two less per exercise
may produce better progress.
This is frustrating since there are so
many variables at play, especially for
trainees who are beyond the novice
stage. This is why you need to
experiment, sensibly, to find what works well for you. Then to further complicate
matters, what works well for you now
may not in a few years time.
This is why it's so important that you become very
knowledgeable about training, and then
set about experimenting sensibly to
apply that knowledge to your own
individual case.
Training Experience
Your level of training experience,
and strength and development, can
affect the effectiveness of a given
interpretation of training. While more
frequent training, for example, may
better suit novice and some intermediate
bodybuilders, it may be a negative step
for advanced power men.
If you're steadily getting stronger, and
strength is your priority, stay with what
you're currently doing. If you're getting
stronger, but not seeing the size increases
you think should accompany the strength
gains, I suggest you try a little more
frequency or a little more volume. If
you're steadily getting bigger, and growth
is your priority, stick with what you're
currently doing. If you're getting bigger,
but not seeing the strength increases you
think should accompany the size gains, I
suggest you try a little less frequency or a
little less volume.
The qualifier about progressive
poundages is justified: The strongest
muscles aren't the biggest, and the
biggest muscles aren't the strongest, and
getting stronger doesn't necessarily
mean that you'll get bigger. But don't
jump to an extreme view and think that
poundage progression is unimportant.
For most people for most of the time,
poundage progression is very important
providing, of course, that consistently
good form is used. You still need
progressive resistance, but the precise
format of training you apply the
"progressive poundages in good form"
to (frequency, volume, rep count, etc.),
can influence how much size a given
strength increase produces.
What's excessive abbreviation of
training for some trainees may be just the
job for others. Different trainees may
need different interpretations of the same
basic principles, and may need different
variations at different stages of their
training. Training is more of an art than a
science, and sensible experimentation is
needed if you're to find what works best
for you. You must, however, and as
stressed earlier, keep your training
abbreviated, as typical trainees don't
have the ability to deal with the type of
routines that gifted and drug-enhanced
trainees prosper on.
Before You Hit The Gym
Before you go experimenting with
your training, and as I've said repeatedly,
you need to get everything in good order
out of the gym. So, one more time...
If your sleeping and nutritional habits
are in a mess, no amount of
experimenting with exercise program
design will make much difference. I'm
taking it as a given that the major
components of recovery are in good
order. If they aren't, you must get them in
good order before you throw yourself
into training. You should give priority to
the out-of-the-gym components of
recovery before you get really concerned
with the in-the-gym factors of training.
Recovery is that important.
Some trainees will never gain much
muscle, though they may have gained
some strength, at least in part because
they don't eat enough. Of course, many
trainees do eat enough-and some of
them consume too much, as shown by
surplus bodyfat. If you're lean, and your
bodyweight never seems to move yet
you want bigger muscles, chances are
that you're not consuming enough
quality nutrition.
For further discussion on related issues,
and some specific guidelines to try in the
gym, see Stuart's series "Experimental
Training" in issues 72-74.
Sample Issue:
If you know of someone who would
be interested in reading a free
sample issue of HARDGAINER, please
let us know the name and address
and we'll send a copy on.
Visit us at Hardgainer Online!
Copyright 2000 by CS Publishing
Thanks,
cspubltd@spidernet.com.cy
Recommend this article to a friend by e-mail here!
Visitor Reviews Of This Article!
Read Visitor Reviews - Write Your Own Review
Back To Hardgainer.com's Main Page
Back To The Articles Main Page.
Related Articles
Pyramid Power: Building A Firm Foundation!
What Makes Muscles Grow?
Clank And Bangers
