*Copied from an earlier forum post.*
A lot of big guys deadlift with their spine bent
alot of big guys use body momentum to do curls
alot of big guys bench with their legs flapping in the air occasionally.
etc
etcYou say, “well, it worked for them”
Yes, but that still doesnt mean what someone is doing is all that good. Many guys have been lifting for 5,10,15,20 years. After that much time, someone could be pretty big, and near their genetic limit, even after getting only ‘50% results’ so to speak.
Same goes for someone who has been getting no results at all, and does something that starts to actually get results, after being told for a year “find what works well for you. Experiment.”
Well, after getting “5/100 results, 40/100 is going to seem pretty good” It would also be easy to come to the conclusion that that is ‘what works best for them’. You say, that isnt horrible, but you could do better. You get “no, i tried a ton of programs, and this is all that works.”
Everyone is a little bit different, but most people (with a small percentage exception) are largely the same. 100/100 for a few people isnt going to be 100/100 for everyone, but it is going to be pretty high for most people.
Im not talking about any one particular routine here; the best program will always use different parameters from time to time. Most people dont do this, though, even when they think they do… which is why you hear “I keep mixing it up, but im still at a plateau”
Another way of looking at it is people who are crawling, standstill, walking, jogging, running, etc. You can cross the finish line by walking, but obviously running will get you there fastest. People who are crawling are at a standstill obviously arent getting results. For these people, obviously going to a walk or slow jog is going to seem like amazing results. It will probably seem like they ‘found “what works” for them’. Sometimes they may have gotten the program or ideas from a big guy at the gym who has been lifting for 14 odd years.
Try to suggest to them that they run, and give them some tips on how to run, and you may get a response such as “well, look at those guys! They walked, and they crossed the finish line.
Why is it that the big guy are ‘big guys’ after 10+ years or so, and others are ‘big guys’ after 3 years or so? Genetics? In some cases, probably. In many others, probably not. In some cases, from what I have seen people doing in the gym, it is my opinion that many big guys are ‘big guys’ in spite of their routine, not becuase of it. Genetics? Maybe. Or simply becuase they have been ‘walking’ for a long time? Maybe.
So after being told to ‘experiment & see what works best… its all trial and error’, a beginner might go from crawl, (5/10) to 40/10 (walk). It will probably seem great. However, in most cases, you can give them a ‘running’ program that will automatically be 80/100-100/100 (again, just using numbers as an example). Yes, what is 86/100 for some may be 95/100 for others. But what is 50/100 isnt going to by 90/100 for very many people. And what is 90/100 for most isnt going to be 40/100 for very many people.
Everyone is different, but in most cases, not that much so.
Obviously, some things change as you advance.
You build up an increased tolerance for work capacity, which usually allows for more frequent workouts. Altering the parameters frequently can also allow for more frequent workouts. This will also increase recovery ability in most cases (nutrition is huge… and im not just talking about C,P,F)
Beginners who have built up strength will often be able to benefit more from a higher volume workout, vesus when they did not have as much strength. Someone who has been ‘lifting heavy’ for awhile has likely ‘maxed out’ their fastest, IIB fibers, and will probably benefit more by targeting the ’slower’ type II range of motor units.
However, this all still falls into the same rule as before… this is just breaking it down a bit more..
A program designed to target place the most emphasis on hypertrophy of IIB fibers that is 90/100 for some people will be 80/100- 100/100 for most people (with a small minority as an exception)
A routine that is more towards emphasis on hypertrophy of the IIA end of the units, possibly getting into the “left side” of muscular endurance will be the same way.
And yes, this also includes most of the ‘genetic bell curve’. The same program that is designed to target & hypertrophy a certain range of fibers/MUs for a genetic freak will also do the same for the skinny ectomorph. Obviously, the genetic freak will gain more mass from a “90/100″ program than the ectomorph would, but it is still pretty similar.
Some people may genetically have more ‘fast twitch’ fibers, and as such, may see greater, actual, total results from a routine that targets this range of fibers/mus that a person who genetically has more ’slower’ fibers. Regardless, the program that empasizes the ‘left side range’ of fibers for the ‘fast twitch’ person will also be similar in effectiveness for the ’slow twitch’ person. The visible, physical results will probably vary, because one person has more fibers of one type to hypertrophy than the other. And MU ratios can change over time as well.
Because of the variations above, and becuase each ‘range’ of fibers and/or training results requires different stimuli, a varied program with different parameters is best, aka.. ‘mixing it up’
It may seem like this takes away from the ‘80/100-100/100? rule, and leans more towards “experiment. Everyone is (vastly) different”. But it still doesnt.
Sets, reps, rest times, techniques, etc ,etc can all be broken down pretty simply. It is easy to see whether a workout will target the ‘left side’, ‘right side’, ‘middle’, etc, etc. The best program will include all of these. Obviously, some people may get best results from a bit more ‘left side’, or a bit more ‘right side’, but that is where the 80/100- 100/100 comes in.
Common techniques like forced reps, drop sets, supersets, pyramids, partials, etc can also be examined in the same, simple way.
For example, take forced reps. One guy does them, and it isnt helping. Another guy does them, and he is one of the ‘big guys’. What gives? Is it simply becuase “forced reps” dont ‘work’ for some people, while they work for others?
Well, last time I checked, the body doesnt have ‘forced reps’ programmed into its genes. It basically has stress and adaption..
Guy A does forced reps becuase he hears that ‘adding that extra intensity’ is what ’shocks the muscles into growth’. But its not working for him. If you take a look at his workout, you may find that he is only doing a total of 27 reps per workout. If you were to watch him, you may also find that he lowers the weight very fast, with a slow eccentric time. There is not much micro damage being done here, or as some people put it, there isnt enough ‘time under tension’.
As a result, not enough stimulus is being created for significant hypertrophy of the muscle fiber range that is being emphasized. The forced reps, which add perhaps 20% workload to those muscles still arent doing the trick. Well, maybe if he tried pre-exhaustion…. he read about it in flex mag. He does, and as a result, his pecs, (or whatever) end up getting a sufficient workload to produce results.
The magazine says “This is great, becuase it tires a certain muscle out. You will never feel such a burn!!!”
(I really dont think that ‘tiring a muscle out’ really has much to do with hypertrophy stimulus. The keyword here being much. Im not going to be dogmatic and say “It has absolutely nothing to do with it”…. research may eventually show.. or it may have already shown that microdamge at any given second is greater when ATP levels are lower (tiredness).. or somthing like that)
But the point is, someone like me will come in and say “No, that technique is not ideal to use (and yes, I have my reasons for saying this)”, and someone else will say “Yea, well it worked for guy A… everyone is different!!!”
Perhaps it was enough to bump him up to a walk. But that still doesnt mean it is running, or close to running.
(that phrase time under tension has good meaning when used in the right context, but I hate it nonetheless, becuase it is used incorrectly so often)
Guy B does forced reps, but he also does 2 exercises per muscle group, rather than 1. He also lowers the weight slower than Guy A, resulting in more mechanical work, more micro damage, and a greater hypertrophy response as a result. Is it becuase of the forced reps? Is it becuase ‘forcing reps’, ‘overloading the CNS’ somehow ‘works’ for him? For a couple people here and there who have some strange genetics, maybe.. but for most people, no.. probably not.
Guy C was doing another routine, and he didnt start getting results until he started using forced reps. It could appear that ‘forced reps’ are the key for him. They didnt work for guy A… it must be becuase everyone is different, and they simply dont work for guy A.
If you take a look at his routine, you may find that he was doing X number of reps per muscle groups. Perhaps this workout placed emphasis on IIB end of the spectrum of muscle fibers. And an advanced, hypothetical scientific machine finds that he isnt getting QUITE enough mechanical stimulus, or micro damgage to stimulate siginifact hypertrophy.
Guy C starts adding 4-5 forced reps after each set, bumping the total amount of workload placed on his IIb fiber up by 30%. It is enough to cause enough microdamage to stimulate hypertrophy. Is it the forced reps that are working, or the increased workload.
Leave Comment