About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 6:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How does he define this optimal increase? What is the exercise level needed to do this? Why do Olympic gold medal winners or weightlifting champions like Schwartzenegger in his prime train for many, many hours? Are they the best in the world despite doing it wrong?

Post 1

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 11:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is true of taxation, too.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 11:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

There are 2 reasons for your confusion:

1) most elite strength athletes use drugs (allowing them to get away with almost any level of training)
2) Mentzer didn't sell H.I.T. very clearly

Regarding the latter, you may have heard Mentzer advocate one-set training -- but you didn't hear that that set included bring the working muscle groups to momentary muscle failure several times. Two of the techniques you can use -- two of the techniques Mentzer himself used -- are "rest-pause" and "drop-sets."

Rest-pause
Rest-pause is when you rep-out with a weight, pause without changing the weight, and continue in a few moments for a few more reps.

Drop-sets
Drop-sets are when you start with a heavy weight, go to failure, drop the weight to a medium or light weight and continue right away (without a rest).

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 3:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have been following "The Big-Five Workout" program outlined in Body by Science by Little and McGuff since early May. The authors do a much better job of elucidating the science behind High-Intensity Training (HIT) than Mentzer did. McGuff, an MD, goes into excruciating detail about the biochemistry behind HIT and why it works.

For a mere 12 minutes per week, I have seen solid improvements in weights and reps. I am not ready to sing its praises yet, but so far, so good. I will revisit the issue in December with a more thorough report.

As with so many trailblazers, Mentzer required successors to expand and refine his original radical message to make it more accessible to the masses. Mentzer won or placed in numerous competitions using his methods. So did Bill Sahli and other notable bodybuilders.

The single biggest "take away" message I got from McGuff is the importance of muscle mass in burning calories at rest. According to McGuff, a pound of muscle at rest burns 17 times as many calories per day as a pound of fat at rest. So anyone who wants to engage in weight management absolutely needs to increase muscle mass and decrease fat mass. More muscle mass means more calories burned per day just resting. This seems obvious in retrospect but runs counter to the aerobics obsession that has dominated the fitness culture for decades.

Perhaps HIT is to muscle building what the Laffer curve is to tax revenue generation, though the former is more moral!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 8/21, 5:22am)


Post 4

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

What's "The Big-Five" routine? I remember independently arriving at a 5-exercise multi-joint workout plan (I even posted it) and now you are telling me that these researchers came up with something called Big-5?

The reason I ask is because this kind of a thing has already happened to me regarding optimizing protein intake. I emailed a prominent scientist about a lack of accuracy regarding all previous protein recommendations and a year later, he co-authored a book where my protein recommendations just magically showed up!

I want royalties, dammit!

:-)

Ed

Post 5

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 8:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke I definitely eagerly await to hear what your results will be. I'm intrigued by Mentzer's methodology so I'd like to use you as the guinea pig so to speak before I dive into the program myself. Would you be willing to post your experiences in a blog for us to follow? Or give us updates in a thread in RoR Fitness?


(Edited by John Armaos on 8/21, 8:59am)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
THE BIG 5 WORKOUT Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txsd0rIsPR4
THE BIG 5 WORKOUT Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USyj-RgHFl0&feature=related


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 9:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The Big-Five Workout" consists of these machine routines performed once per week for 12 minutes:

1. Seated Row
2. Chest Press
3. Pulldown
4. Overhead Press
5. Leg Press

Each exercise is performed with the maximum weight the user can handle for a target number of reps of 10 or higher. The cadence involves six seconds positive and six seconds negative exertion. The pulldown includes a three to five second hold in the middle to allow for a vertical crunch to work the abdominals.

Based on the advised times, this works to roughly two to three minutes per set with less than 30 seconds between sets. The authors emphasize that moving quickly from machine to machine places the needed demands of "maximum exertion" on the muscles. This achieves the "inroad" needed to stimulate "overcompensation" in the subsequent recovery days. As the weeks progress, the user increases reps or weights (or both) while keeping the target "time under load" (TUL) of the routine around 12 minutes or so.

I go to Planet Fitness and pay an "after hours" trainer there $15 to march me through the cadences. If I could maintain the mental focus needed, I would not pay her. But this is an extremely demanding program and I tend to cut myself way more slack than she would. The program demands an absolute "all out" exertion beyond what many would consider themselves capable.

The authors advocate a whole foods diet of vegetables, fruits, nuts, and fish and advise avoiding grains and processed foods for reasons related to sugar balance and inflammation.

I started the program in early May at 21% body fat. Seven workouts later, I had dropped one percent body fat and eight pounds. (I attribute most of the latter to Super Colon Cleanse!) I will wait until December to measure again. But I can tell you -- and my wife will confirm -- that my chest, shoulders, and arms are all noticeably more muscular.

I posted my "before" pictures to this forum but will wait until December to post some "after" pictures. (You will have to join the forum to see them!) My avatar there shows my best fitness photograph from April 2006 (10% body fat) at the peak of my P90X experience. I am not proud of the backsliding that took place in my physique during graduate school. But all things come with a price.

I do have to use hooks on the seated rows and pulldowns to prevent losing my grip!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 8/21, 10:06am)


Post 8

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, Merlin!

The Little-McGuff Big 5 plan is:

1) leg press
2) chest press
3) seated row
4) lat pulldown
5) overhead press

So there is an upper-body pushing exercise from 2 different angles and there is an upper-body pulling exercise from 2 different angles. Leaving just the leg press to train the legs. Alternatively, my Big-5 plan was:

1) Stationary lunge
2) chest press
3) stiff-legged deadlift
4) bent-over row
5) calf-raise

My plan worked the legs more thoroughly and is easily implementable without expensive equipment. And, because it was in response to a runner who started the thread, that was appropriate.

Interestingly, I started out in that thread by talking about what's exactly in the Little-McGuff plan (as my old routine). Hmmm. Exercise for the reader: Do Little and McGuff perform science -- or did they merely bug my house and steal my ideas? How will we ever know?

:-)

It's probably just another one of those "independently arrived at" instances. If science is a journey toward the truth of a matter, well then you would have to expect that more than one researcher might simultaneously (or independently) arrive there.

Ed

Ancillary Notes
This Big 5 YouTube video is from April, 2009, while I posted my "Big-5" plan here in RoR Fitness (thread: Minimum equipment for home workout) in June, 2005.


Post 9

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

We cross-posted. Thank you, too. Please consider using the following as a standard to judge your new program: A good plan will improve your working (6-12 reps) weight in multi-joint upper body exercises at least 2.5-lbs per week and it will improve your working weight in the leg press at least 5-lbs per week.

What this means is that if, after 10 weeks (for example), if you are not working with at least 25-lbs more than what you started with on upper body exercises, and with at least 50-lbs more than what you started with on the leg press -- then you got sub-optimal results (indicating that some adjustment or fine-tuning is needed).

So let's say you start a program with a baseline ablility to perform 10 reps with 100-lbs on the chest press and 10-reps with 200-lbs on the leg press. If, after 10 weeks on a program, you are not working with at least 125-lbs for 10 reps on the chest press and at least 250-lbs for 10 reps on the leg press -- then you are doing something wrong.

Ed


Post 10

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Perhaps I can describe my current weight-training plan, and if I'm doing something wrong can someone let me know?

I alternate days between aerobic training on my mountain bike, and weight training at the gym.

I try to work each muscle group just once a week, and then let it heal and rebuild.

I mix it up between using machines and using free weights for each muscle group.

Because my legs are strong enough to max out almost all of the leg machines at the gym, I don't worry about whether I'm overdoing it, I mainly use them to exercise my heart and don't worry about building muscle mass there.

Because I've injured myself frequently in the past, I start each weight training session at very light weights, perhaps 25% of my maximum weight level, doing 10 reps very slowly and concentrating on form, seeing if anything is feeling sore and thus indicating I need to rest those muscles longer.

If the initial reps feel good and injury-free, i slowly add weight, 5 reps at each weight level, until I'm starting to feel some strain (usually around 70% to 80%), but still feeling strong. Then, my warmup complete for that machine, I repeat it on the other few machines that work the day's muscle group.

Warmups complete, I almost finish the workout for each machine, perhaps trying for three 5 rep sets working up to perhaps 95% of maximum weight, do the same for the other machine, then come back for the last set. At the maximum weight, i'll push to failure for one or two reps, catch my breath for a minute or so, then try to push another rep or two, maybe do it a third time. Pau! (Hawaiian for "done").

For example, on the shoulder pull-down machine, I've recently gotten so I can barely do the maximum weight of 255 pounds, so I'll start at about 60 pounds, and then add about 30 pounds a set or so until it gets somewhat hard at around 160 to 180 pounds, then come back after I've warmed up on the other machines and work up to 240 pounds, go around to the other machines again, and then one last go at 255, one or if i can manage it two reps to failure, catch my breath, and repeat until i've gotten 4 to 5 total reps in at max weight.

When I've finished all the machines, I'll do ten minutes on the bikes or elliptical machine, revving up my heart rate to 90% to 95% of the max allowed for my age (at age 50, that's a "no-go" of 170 heart rate, so 160 is roughly my target max rate for the workout.)

A typical week:

Day 1: Shoulders / chest
Day 2: MB (Mountain Biking)
Day 3: Biceps / triceps
Day 4: MB
Day 5: Torso
Day 6: Legs
Sunday: Rest day

OK, any obviously counterproductive stuff here? Thanks!

Post 11

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Also, I was getting calluses that peeled off on the flesh pads just below each finger, so I invested in a pair of leather weight lifting gloves (Harbinger brand was the nicest and most flexible, so I bought those). Makes my hands hot, but the peeling has stopped.

Post 12

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 1:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

The standard above is for folks in their first year of uninterrupted training. After that, the standard drops, so that you don't have to make so much improvement in your workload each week. This is because you are progressively actualizing your genetic potential (leaving less to shoot for). Here's a rough table* showing what happens to the human body over 5-years of uninterrupted training:

Ed & Jim's Strength Gains table

........................................ Upper Body gains ... Leg Press gains
Training Time
0-6 months.............................. 2.5-lbs/wk.............. 5.0-lbs/wk
6-12 months............................ 2.25-lbs/wk............ 4.5-lbs/wk
1.0-1.5 years .......................... 2.0-lbs/wk.............. 4.0-lbs/wk
1.5-2.0 years........................... 1.75-lbs/wk............ 3.5-lbs/wk
2.0-2.5 years........................... 1.5-lbs/wk.............. 3.0-lbs/wk
2.5-3.0 years........................... 1.25-lbs/wk............ 2.5-lbs/wk
3.0-3.5 years........................... 1.0-lbs/wk.............. 2.0-lbs/wk
3.5-4.0 years........................... 0.75-lbs/wk............ 1.5-lbs/wk
4.0-4.5 years........................... 0.5-lbs/wk.............. 1.0-lbs/wk
4.5-5.0 years........................... 0.25-lbs/wk............ 0.5-lbs/wk

After 5 years of uninterrupted training, expect little further gains -- no more than what you gained in your 5th year. If you are over 50 years old and have trained for 5 uninterrupted years, expect no further gains -- expect to only be able to maintain what you gained during your 5 years of improvements.

Ed


Reference:
Ciolac EG, Brech GC, Greve JM. Age Does Not Affect Exercise Intensity Progression Among Women. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Aug 10. [Epub ahead of print]

Ciolac EG, Garcez-Leme LE, Greve JM. Resistance exercise intensity progression in older men. Int J Sports Med. 2010 Jun;31(6):433-8. 

Häkkinen K, Komi PV, Alén M, Kauhanen H. EMG, muscle fibre and force production characteristics during a 1 year training period in elite weight-lifters. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1987;56(4):419-27.

Häkkinen K, Pakarinen A, Alen M, Kauhanen H, Komi PV. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes to strength training in two years. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Dec;65(6):2406-12.

*Edited to fix an error caught by Jim

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/21, 11:32pm)


Post 13

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Ed. I am making steady improvements on weights. I have a running log so I can post something about that eventually. I only wish I had known about this when I was 16!

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 9:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Broke out the calculator. According to your table, if you started out as a complete couch potato barely able to lift more than a pound or so, after 10 years of uninterrupted training, you should be doing:

715 pounds for the upper body
1,430 pounds for the lower body

Sound about right? =)

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 11:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You're right, Jim.

While it's true that there are men who can bench press 715-lbs and there are men who can leg press 1430-lbs, I was off on one of my key assumptions (and it showed up, and you caught it). The assumption was that it takes about 10 years to maximize your genetic potential.

In reality, however, folks may routinely take 10 years -- but they could have done it in about 5 years, but life somehow slowed them down (so that their training wasn't constantly high-level). It turns out it is unreasonable to expect someone to be at the top of their game for a decade consistently.

I assumed that the elite athletes in the first Hakkinen study -- who still got 4% annual improvements! -- assuming that these elite athletes had been at it for 10 years (when in reality, it could have only took them 5 to get there), compounded an error throughout the table. Hey, I said the thing was "rough", didn't I?

:-)

Anyway, re-adjusting the time-frames from a year to 6 months is logical as it shows that improvements happen faster in the beginning, and they do not add up as long. It's also intuitively attractive because it takes about 6 months for you to have totally new muscle cells.

I've edited my post in order to correct this error.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/21, 11:30pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 11:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

I don't see any obviously counterproductive stuff in your workout routine. It isn't obviously counterproductive, but you may be warming up too much. As I understand it, you are doing more than 3 sets before you attempt what I would call a 'working set' (a set to muscle failure with appropriate weight).

Is that true?

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 11:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regarding callouses

Jim, you remind me of when I was a gym rat and had such thick, peeling callouses that my hand would get caught on things such as a shaggy carpet. Funny stuff.

Ed


Post 18

Sunday, August 22, 2010 - 12:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't see any obviously counterproductive stuff in your workout routine. It isn't obviously counterproductive, but you may be warming up too much. As I understand it, you are doing more than 3 sets before you attempt what I would call a 'working set' (a set to muscle failure with appropriate weight).

Ed -- It depends on how you define "set". I'll essentially do about 50+ reps almost all in a row, with quick weight changes as I work up to a somewhat challenging weight level.

Perhaps I am not being sufficiently rigorous in my technique, just kind of winging it and trying slightly different ways of approaching the weight level where I can barely do one or at most two reps. I gather from your comments that that technique, or lack thereof, may be impeding my progress.

I come by my paranoia of pushing it too hard honestly, though. When I was in my early thirties, I ripped the hell out of my left shoulder while trying to bench 200 pounds, and wound up having a Bankart repair and another surgical technique to fix that shoulder, and suffered permanent damage -- I still can't sleep on my left shoulder, or even lay on it for very long, and almost certainly never will.

And, when I started easing into weight training about 2.5 years ago, I kept injuring myself until I had the epiphany about half a year ago to do the extensive warming up I described, and VERY cautiously sneak up on my maximum weight for a session.

So, perhaps with that history, what would be a suboptimal technique for virtually everyone else may be a decent compromise for my individual physique.

Re: your post, my theory on it is this: let's say that your maximum genetic potential at say, age 30 is to bench 400 pounds. As you approach that limit, the curve for improvement goes asymptotic. That is, it doesn't matter HOW long you have been weight training, what matters for how rapidly you can gain strength is how close to the genetic maximum potential you are, with initial quick gains possible, and tinier and tinier improvements as you gain strength.

Also, that maximum curve changes with age, with a peak perhaps in your teens or twenties, and a slow decline in the maximum as you age. Being 50, I simply can't be as strong as I potentially could be when I was 25, though I can still be in damn fine shape if I keep at it (and I do feel pretty good about my physique now when I look in the mirror -- plenty of room for improvement, but if I just maintain what I have, I would still be content.)

Anyhow, I appreciate your advice, and sanctions galore!

Post 19

Sunday, August 22, 2010 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

With your unique history, your extensive warm-ups might be best for you. Good points.

Regarding the asymptotic progression toward maximum genetic potential. You have good points (and my revised table is, itself, asymptotic), but your points about age are somewhat refuted by the 2 Ciolac et al. studies above (in my post # 12).

Folks over 50 should still expect 5 years of improvements at roughly the same rate as younger folks get (i.e., the table works regardless of your age). The only difference being that younger folks can keep on slowly (asymptotically) adding strength -- to the tune of about 0.25-0.5 lbs per week per exercise -- until they reach about 50 years old.

Ed


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.