After the blissful simplicity of SS, this program has me scratching my head a bit..
Questions:
1) How do warm up sets fit in for alternate sets? Do you just do warm up sets for DB incline, do your first 5x5, then do warm up sets for cable row, then do your 5x5 for that?
Maybe you don't need warm up sets for these exercises?
2) With the alternating sets, it looks like this, right?
DB incline 5x5 (60 lbs, for example)
Cable Row 5x5
90 second rest
DB incline 3x15 (40 lbs, for example)
Cable Row 3x15
30 second rest
DB incline 4x10 (50 lbs, for example)
Cable Row 4x10
60 second rest
I'm not getting what this:
workouts 1,4,7,10 5x5
workouts 2,5,8,11 3x15
3. Why does the experienced lifter only do this program 2x a week, while a novice can do it 4x a week? Because they're lifting heavier than novices?
For the alternating sets, you rest after each exercise and just alternate between the two. It's not a true superset.
For workout 1, you do 5 sets of 5. Then, down where it says workout 2, you do 3 sets of 15, then for workout 3, you do 4 sets of 10. Then, back to workout 4, and 5 sets of 5, etc., etc. You will do 24 workouts total (12 A workouts and 12 B workouts). So, alternate between workout A and workout B.
For workout 1, you do 5 sets of 5. Then, down where it says workout 2, you do 3 sets of 15, then for workout 3, you do 4 sets of 10. Then, back to workout 4, and 5 sets of 5, etc., etc. You will do 24 workouts total (12 A workouts and 12 B workouts). So, alternate between workout A and workout B.
Ooooh.. Ok. Got it! (I think)
So workout 1 would look like this:
DB incline 5x5 (60 lbs, for example)
Cable Row 5x5
90 second rest
DB incline 5x5
Cable Row 5x5
90 second rest
DB incline 5x5
Cable Row 5x5
90 second rest
DB incline 5x5
Cable Row 5x5
90 second rest
DB incline 5x5
Cable Row 5x5
Workout 2 would look like this:
DB incline 3x15 (40 lbs, for example)
Cable Row 3x15
30 second rest
DB incline 3x15
Cable Row 3x15
30 second rest
DB incline 3x15
Cable Row 3x15
And workout 3 would look like this:
DB incline 4x10 (45 lbs, for example)
Cable Row 4x10
60 second rest
DB incline 4x10
Cable Row 4x10
60 second rest
DB incline 4x10
Cable Row 4x10
60 second rest
DB incline 4x10
Cable Row 4x10
Right?
I have the weight examples right? It's not the same weights is it? It's what weights you can do for 5, what weights you can do for 15, and what weights you can do for 10, correct?
Am I right on my assumption for questions 1 and 3?
You got the change in reps right.
You've got the change in weights right.
Quote:
For the alternating sets, you rest after each exercise and just alternate between the two. It's not a true superset.
You are still misunderstanding on the rest.
These are not supersets. They are alternating sets - as in alternating between two exercises but you get the full rest between each. Lou admits the phrasing was not very clear on this part about "full rest".
Ex 1 for reps
rest
Ex 2 ror reps
rest
repeat for number of sets
Ex 3 for reps
rest
Ex 4 for reps
rest
repeat for number of sets
It's not public domain as far as I know. It's a weird fine line. We try not to violate copyright - after all we like the author(s) and don't want to take money out of their hands . But on the other hand, a dedicated seeker has only to read someone's workout log and do a little work to figure it out.
The way the author expressed the workout (the chart) would seem to be protected - the actual ideas not as protected. As with a recipe, the way the author writes the instructions seems to be the protected part as compared to the list of ingredients.
On the other hand, legal considerations are generally different than ethical considerations.
If that's a serious question and not rhetorical, then I'd say that the publisher who supplied the books to the seller had full knowledge of how they'd be displayed and gave consent to that browsing pre-sale use. As would a publisher who sold books to libraries. I think the case could be made that those uses are to be considered differently than scanning & posting online in a public forum.
In a similar manner, Amazon has made some "look inside" arrangements with publishers for some works and Google books is excerpting pages from books via arrangement with the publisher. But you probably know more about copyright than I do.
Whether the concepts make sense in a digital world I don't know. If the book is published I'll respect the rights notice in the text. That's an ethical decision for me to abide by the rights notice.
As far as rights and information content goes, then conventional citation norms should be followed for citing a source. And this outside of plagerism considerations for schemes or methods (I'm thinking of the bruhaha(s) earlier on this and other forums over some fitness information and marketing texts). But none of those were happening here - just a scan of a page that was properly credited to the source.
I think the case could be made that those uses are to be considered differently than scanning & posting online in a public forum.
Only if you subscribe to the belief that the information is equal to the physical product.
But that's pretty much a legal fiction created to protect a business model. Nobody would argue that information is a "scarcity" in real terms.
Quote:
Whether the concepts make sense in a digital world I don't know. If the book is published I'll respect the rights notice in the text. That's an ethical decision for me to abide by the rights notice.
Copyright and IP law as they exist today are utterly outdated and all but irrelevant in the digital world.
Copyright as it currently exists isn't going away without a fight, but make no mistake, it's going away; your point about it being an ethical decision illustrates why.
Information isn't scarce in a digital society, and trying to emulate the copyright practices of a "print" society is tantamount to trying to fight the naval battles of the modern era with tactics that apply to Roman triremes. The paradigm has shifted and the old rules don't apply.
Any system that relies on an utterly arbitrary standard (i.e., I won't access copyrighted data online because I wouldn't do it with the physical product) falls apart because the analogy itself is flawed.
The idea would be to update the business model to reflect the new paradigm, but obviously the old guard is very reluctant to do that - which isn't news, because it happens any time a new means of distribution and production comes into effect.
Quote:
As far as rights and information content goes, then conventional citation norms should be followed for citing a source. And this outside of plagerism considerations for schemes or methods (I'm thinking of the bruhaha(s) earlier on this and other forums over some fitness information and marketing texts). But none of those were happening here - just a scan of a page that was properly credited to the source.
I'm all for credit and attribution, make no mistake. But that's a different animal from compensation-for-product, which is really what the copyright debate boils down to.
What I'm having a big chuckle about (and I mean in a global sense, from the current RIAA vs. Everyone nonsense to Google Books' current fiasco) is the notion that we can just copy-paste the current "information is a physical thing" model to the digital world, where no such restrictions apply.
"I give you this, you give me that" applies to physical products, but it's just unworkable RE: information.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Hyper I Questions..
Linear Mode
