"You're Overtraining" T-Nation

[OldGuy]

Originally Posted by dos

Hmmmm...a workout sequence based on relative-intensity and set volume....Milko is my new Euro-hero

P.S. that volume is pretty insane for a strength cycle though......

Yeah, I didn't last long on it. But it was good. Very intense.

[eastcoastsurfer]

I think what dos is describing is working out more by feel. Not touchy feely feelings stuff, but adjusting your workout weight based on performance during your workout. If you start your bench working sets and you're simply blowing up the weight that day add more. Don't just complete the prescribed workout, use your good day for gains! Also, don't save for later sets. Give your all every set. If you need to drop the weight later b/c you've decided it's more important to get a # of reps then do it.

The problem with this style workout is that it's hard to do. You're constantly having to make little adjustments during the workout based on your current performance. I don't claim to be an expert on any of this stuff, but it's taken me years of working out to where I feel comfortable making these adjustments on the fly during the workout.

[igunick]

Originally Posted by eastcoastsurfer

The problem with this style workout is that it's hard to do. .

No it's not, I do it all the time...

[eastcoastsurfer]

Originally Posted by igunick

No it's not, I do it all the time...

For many people it's hard to pick a new weight every set (and w/o lots of experience how do you know? 5lbs? 10lbs? more/less?). Sometimes you do less sets or more sets (were 3 sets enough? should I do another?). Sometimes you do less weight or more weight (that was hard do I want to drop the weight to get 5reps or keep the weight the same and be happy with 3 reps?). You also have to be honest with yourself about how much weight you're doing. Are you dropping it because you don't want to do it more or b/c you can't do more?

Most want to go to gym with a program in hand and follow it exactly, which is the exact opposite of what I described.

[gobbla]

I kind of wonder if it's a difference in training age and conditioning levels dictating the value (or lack of) in some methods or cycles.

If someone is relatively new (either to weightlifting in general, the or to that rep scheme) the amount of weight that they have to lift in comparison to their 1RM to make progress isn't going to be nearly as dramatic as someone that's been training effectively for years and years.

So if you have 100 people saying a program worked great and 100 people saying it didn't do crap, you have 200 people that are right.

[laxcdn]

Originally Posted by eastcoastsurfer

It was already said, but calorie surplus means you will gain weight and calorie defficient means you will lose weight regardless of your workout.

I'm with Chris though. Periodization seems to be the best way for *most* people. Add some strength, then use that strength to add some size, rinse and repeat. Also serves the purpose of keeping your body from adapting to any one training method and from getting bored. All this NROL pimping has me thinking I'm going to go through all it's strength and hyper workouts again

OK, so I eat 500+ a day, what rep/set scheme is going to give me maximal size? Dos already answered, so I got my answer I just read that Mike Mahler MH article about the 3x3 with 2 exercises a day 4x week. So we have high reps/low sets, low sets/high reps, and low sets/low reps, then you have how many sets per workout, how many workouts a week, how many workouts a day, full body or split, etc. It is hard to figure out what to do when everyone has a opinion. That is why I get confused about what and how to do which workout.

[flying scotsman]

Originally Posted by Chris Correia

I believe you noted that with your athletes, you generally adjust weight to that they can train with the desired number of reps in each set.

My question (again!), so I can understand that approach to training, is: Why? What quality are you seeking to develop in doing that, versus, say, letting them get sets of 8-7-7-6 while keeping the weight constant? In that case (8-7-7-6), all sets would be max rep sets, as opposed to using a weight that's a tad lighter and doing the first two sets for 8 reps sub max so that they could complete the final two sets with 8 reps.

So, how does the 8-8-7-6 scenario essentially differ from the 4x8/adjusting weight, scenario? It seems a small difference to me, but perhaps is a better way of tracking work and periodization, since the athlete is really working at 8 reps, rather than within a range of reps.

Chris, as I understand it, since the number of reps determines the training effect (generally; low reps for strength, moderate reps for hypertrophy and high reps for endurance) then if you choose a load that either allows you to lift more or less than the prescribed reps, then you are not training for the effect that the program was designed for.

At first glance, an 8-8-7-6 with the same load may not look very different than the 4 x 8/adjusting the load, but if you multiply it over the course of a single workout, and then for the workout's you do in a week and subsequently over the course of the programs length (say, 3-6 weeks), then that difference begins to mount up.

If you want to be sure you are working toward the intended training effect, then consistently lift a load to match the number of reps. If you get the loading way out of whack, then you are likely training for a quality outside of what you intended.

I would also add that since time for athletes and regular gym rats like myself, is short, then it is the goal of the coach to design a program that allows the athlete to get in and out of the gym as quickly as possible while still achieving the training effect we are after. After all, the less time an athlete spends in the gym the more time he can train for his sport or just recover.
With that in mind, perhaps what Dos is saying is that he doesn't want to have his athletes lifting loads that lead to wasted reps.

Hopefully Dos will clarify these points. I like Dos's posts; they clearly come from someone working in the field, literally, and it shows.

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by flying scotsman

. . . if you multiply it over the course of a single workout, and then for the workout's you do in a week and subsequently over the course of the programs length (say, 3-6 weeks), then that difference begins to mount up.

. . . it is the goal of the coach to design a program that allows the athlete to get in and out of the gym as quickly as possible while still achieving the training effect we are after.

Great points I should have been able to connect to the topic. I particularly see the training effect issue when, say decreasing reps in a periodization schedule from 8 to 6 to 5 to 4 over some weeks. Targeting the specific number of reps by adjusting the weight would mean that one can target, say 8 reps, and build the adaptation/get the effect for that range, then very consciously, but slightly, up the intensity to train at 6, allowing for a specific, but gradual, increase in intensity and adaptation.

[kuri]

Great thread guys and an excellent reminder to better plan out my actual and relative RMs before hitting the gym.

Damn, I can't believe Mike Boyle was in town for the Perform Better seminar and I missed everything. Alwyn is right and I'm hanging my head in shame for not being there.

[AL53]

I just wanted to bring up rest since the title of this thread is "you're overtraining". Rest I think is something that is often overlooked in training. I think the OCD gets the better of a lot of us and we rush into the gym even if we're still a little sore. I believe you should go in fresh every time no matter what program you do. I've done HIT...it works and i vomitted a lot (don't know how good that is for you, especially your teeth). I've also done programs that contain high volume...work great, however, periodization is something i feel is esential for this type of training and is often over looked by most.
-AL

[bullandbear]

I was with the better to be "undertrained than overtrained" school for many years. I was digging myself into a deeper hole each time I convinced myself not going to the gym is a good thing. This mentality made avoiding the gym a good thing and seeing workouts as being evil instead of enjoyable much to my detriment. The long rest between workouts (3-4 days) also made me lose my conditioning. Not only did I lack GPP, progress was not optimal as well. Having read some training books and adaptation, I seem to get the idea that because of the long breaks between workouts, the body took it to mean that the infrequent workouts and the demands placed on the body was more of a fluke/ or rarity, it never really adapted or gotten stronger than if consistent "reminders" (in the form of more frequent workouts) were in place to tell the body to adapt in both strength, masculature and work capacity or endurance.

I used to work with higher intensity on few sets and noticed when I traded intensity for volume, not only did I recover faster but I was also able to get more frequency into my routine. Very pleased with my progress and never look back. Not trying to sound cocky here but because of my own experiences, I have come to value volume and frequency alot more than I used to.

[Alcoholiday]

what is the arguement/discussion about? i kind of lost track....

[Alcoholiday]

Originally Posted by dos

Really? What about 5 sets starting with say your actual 5RM and gradually ending with your relative 5RM? I will argue that this is superior every time

i agree with this. a lot of people make the mistake in a lot of programs, when they see 5x5, they think it means to pyramid up to a heavy 5, but it actually means 5x5 worksets. 5rm means a heavy 5. 5x5 of the same heavy weight is going to overload your muscles a lot more for a beginner. One of the reasons beginners don't do well with a classical "westside" template. They simply don't have a base, something that they will build by doing something like heavy loading, or simple linear progression with compound movements.

This is why people preach the bill starr workouts so much. They focus on heavy loading with the same weight, adding weight to the bar each workout. It's simple, it works, and it's hard as shit. But, for a beginner, it's going to give you WAY better results than going for 5rm's every workout.

[Keith Scott]

Originally Posted by Frank.S

And, although it has nothing to do with anything really. Dorian yates didnt even train this style until he was pro already. Maybe he should have looked into things a bit further.

.

Are you sure about this Frank? I think you better look into things more before you spout off about this. When was the last time you spoke to Yates about his training? Did an interview of him? I doubt ever. I know for a fact that Jason has spoken to him and knows pretty much how he has trained and what he did.

[bryanc]

I thought we answered this question in 2004...

_That's_ how advanced the advanced forum is...

What is the risk of overtraining?

[dos]

well...the thread started as a discussion on Jason's article but turned-into a discussion on volumes, loads, goals etc.

[flying scotsman]

With Jason's article still in mind I went back over Eric Cressey's 'No Bulk Strength Training' program that I have just completed. Looking at the number of works sets over the whole 4 week program I hadn't realised just how low the number of work sets there were relative to other programs I have studied.
Eric also stipulated that unless otherwise stated the loads to be used were to match the prescribed rep range. This ties in with what Dos has suggested about choosing a load that means no wasted reps (no lifting with 1 or 2 reps left in the tank) and kind of falls in line with Jason suggesting that you could lift heavier loads if you could muster the intensity needed to do so (NB. the intensity he refers to in the article is when he asks you to think about a gunman holding a gun to your head and asking you to do 2 more reps, as opposed to intensity being a measure of your 1RM).

I have to say that the combination of Eric's relatively low work sets and my determination to choose a load that matched the rep range meant that I made great strength gains and the nice bonus of a definate physique change. I would go as far as to say that actually making a bigger effrot to lift a load to match the rep range is one of the best training decisions I have made for a long time.

I have previously followed several of Ian King's programs (Mens Health pull-outs, Get Buffed 1, BOM Intermediate) and they are similarly low in the number of work sets you do and I can recall being very happy with the progress I made, without even being aware that the number of work sets was low. One of the interesting things about Ian's programs is that in most cases you work only each movement once a week; i.e. horizontal pushing/pulling, vertical pushing/pulling, hip/quad dominant.

A problem I now have is that after several months of following the three hypertrophy programs from Alwyn's NROL during 2006, I am used to a bit more volume due in part to working each movement sometimes twice per week and with higher volumes; e.g. 3 supersest of 5 x 5, 4 x10 and 3 x 15, and getting my head round thunking about working movements just once a week now takes some getting used to, though I 've just realised I did that with the strength programs

After thinking about my training over the last 3-4 years, I think I prefer the 3 workouts per week with the lower volume of work sets for various reasons, such as, at 41yo I recover better, I don't feel as tired, I still make good progress etc.

I think one of the best parts of Jason's article was asking the questions:

What exactly is all that training volume doing? And why does everyone seem to think it's necessary and just blindly follow what everyone else is doing?

What are your goals when you go to the gym? Do you even have set goals? Do you know why you do certain exercises and not others? Do you know why you use certain rest periods and not others? Why do you do supersets, drop sets, post and pre-exhaustion? Do you understand how progress is actually made? Have you actual