5 Things I wonder about

[Dr Clay]

My primary reason for attending the Summit is to give some of my deeper, dustier neurons some stimulation - and they got it. (I will say that the meeting people portion was just as cool if not better than my cerebral exercise.)

Anyway, here are a few things that make me and Arsenio Hall go hmmm... I'll simply post the question or thought with no input or bias on my part as I want to hear what you all have to say. Later I'll chime in with my 2 cents worth in regards to my own questions.

Scientific evidence (more like extrapolation), anecdotal evidence, and sheer opinions or gut feelings are all welcome.

1) Would bodybuilders be better if they incorporated more Olympic Lifts and Power Lifts?
2) If bodybuilding type training (higher volume, higher reps, & less frequency) is so inferior, why is it that (virtually) all bodybuilders train that way? Is it the blind following the blind or is there something with that style of training that’s truly superior regarding hypertrophy? (For the record, both natural and assisted bodybuilders tend to train that way; so for sake of argument and intellectual stimulation, let’s eliminate ergogenic aids as a variable.)
3) How important (or detrimental) is training to (concentric) failure? (We may be looking at two different answers, one for strength and one for hypertrophy.)
4) How much (if any) would trainees benefit by stretching the appropriate muscles and strengthening the weak ones. (Ex: stretching the pecs and subscapularis and strengthening the rhomboids, mid/lower traps, & external rotators.) Would some “prehab” contribute significantly to size and strength gains? Or is this overrated since virtually all powerlifters and bodybuilders are posturally jacked up.
5) Whey seems to be best paraworkout; but the studies have all been done fasted – I believe. Would this rapid influx of aminos be as important when one ate just two or three hours ago (prior to training?)
6) Lastly, a simple one (sort of): is it more important to train hard or train smart?

[Kevin T.]

For #4, trainees would definitely benefit by stretching the right muscles and strengthening the weak ones. While the general public might be more concerned with with bench press #s, around here I know the general consensus is that we're all looking to lift bigger weights, or get into better shape, or just become better as what we like to do. So naturally, fixing our weak spots and helping strengthen injured areas is of huge interest, if it will help us get better. Mike Robertson just released his Bulletproof Knees and I know a bunch of people are clammering to find out how to fix their creaky knees.

For #6, I think it was Alwyn who said something along the lines of the person who trains his @$$ off on a shitty (as in lesser quality) program gets more results than the person who keeps switching his program searching for that all-elusive "perfect" program. My thinking: train hard on whatever program you're doing until you find something that you think will be better. Then, finish up the program you're on already before starting the next one.

[Michael Roussell]

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

Whey seems to be best paraworkout; but the studies have all been done fasted – I believe. Would this rapid influx of aminos be as important when one ate just two or three hours ago (prior to training?)

I wonder about this too. It would be good to have study in which the subjects are fed and then 2 hours later undergo a workout with CHO/PRO drink

[Lost Dog]

Here's my take...

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

1) Would bodybuilders be better if they incorporated more Olympic Lifts and Power Lifts?

I doubt it, but maybe. It would help to get stronger, giving you the ability to lift more weight, and therefore grow bigger, faster. I'm sure some "power lifts" would help to a degree, but getting stronger via Powerlifting lifts might be of more benefit.

2) If bodybuilding type training (higher volume, higher reps, & less frequency) is so inferior, why is it that (virtually) all bodybuilders train that way? Is it the blind following the blind or is there something with that style of training that’s truly superior regarding hypertrophy? (For the record, both natural and assisted bodybuilders tend to train that way; so for sake of argument and intellectual stimulation, let’s eliminate ergogenic aids as a variable.)

Because it works. Bodybuilders also use plenty of techniques that require more time for recovery (rest/pause, drop sets, failure training, etc.). I think it might be the bliind following some guy that wasn't blind. Pied Piper is a better analogy. Or, someone who teaches the how without the why to his students.

Phases of strength training would probably benefit bodybuilders in the long run, but it's scary to stop what you know works and have faith in this step.

3) How important (or detrimental) is training to (concentric) failure? (We may be looking at two different answers, one for strength and one for hypertrophy.)

It's a tool for stimulating muscle growth. Creating a metabolic disturbance that stimulates growth. Better for growth than strength, I'd think.

4) How much (if any) would trainees benefit by stretching the appropriate muscles and strengthening the weak ones. (Ex: stretching the pecs and subscapularis and strengthening the rhomboids, mid/lower traps, & external rotators.) Would some “prehab” contribute significantly to size and strength gains? Or is this overrated since virtually all powerlifters and bodybuilders are posturally jacked up.

I can tell you my one anecdote. My forearms have never grown and I have carpal tunnel syndrome. Bill Hartman showed me some stretching and poor man's ART for them last year. Now they are frickin' hyuge! Or, at least a lot bigger...

5) Whey seems to be best paraworkout; but the studies have all been done fasted – I believe. Would this rapid influx of aminos be as important when one ate just two or three hours ago (prior to training?)

I think your time line is too extreme. That leaves you with little fuel to even feed the workout. One hour prior is about where I'd draw the line for a great workout. Longer than that, I'd take the workout drink before/during. Post, I think the drink is optimal, but a solid meal would be fine assuming you had the pre/during drink or had eaten enough within the last 2-3 hours from your pwo meal. Training is hard work. I think the drink is optimal and the longer your workout and the farther between meals you get, the more important it becomes. If you aren't cutting, I think it's probably best to go with the drink and make sure the daily calories are in check. Cutting, it's a decision on what you want to ingest. An unsatisfying pwo drink or one of you precious few solid, skimpy meals.

6) Lastly, a simple one (sort of): is it more important to train hard or train smart?

There was a little discussion in Chris Shugart's Blog (t-nation). I tend to agree that training hard with a crappy workout trumps using the best workout and training half assed.

Oh. In the longer sideburn contest, which of you wins, you or Nick?

[Kevin T.]

LD: do you have any examples of those stretches and "poor man ART"? My dad has CTS so I think it'd be nice to show him some ways to help ease some pain when it gets bad.

[Lost Dog]

I'll try to find a link to the stretches.

As to the ART part, I found that I "lost it" the trick and had to switch to myofascial release. I use a tennis ball while laying on the ground.

You might post in Bill's forum to see if he can describe it. There are probably cues to indicate where to press and dig that I would screw up.

[Jason B]

1) Oly Lifts - No. Powerlifts - Yes. It's about muscle tension.

2) Depends on the type of hypertrophy desired. The bodybuilder is after the most hypertrophy possible, and that's sarcomplasmic hypertrophy, best attained with a high volume of moderate intensity work (bodypart splits). And for the record about the drugs, 'bodypart' splits weren't popular until AAS were. Think about it.

3) Failure is very important when training for strength, but must be managed well. For size it's not nearly as crucial, but can still be beneficial, again, in moderation.

4) Fixing posture problems is very important for long term results. It might not make you stronger right away and you might be able to get by without it, but eventually you're going to hurt yourself.

5) No, not as important, but still important. I think the carbs around a workout should be questioned as well, is a super-diabetic blood sugar spike necessary when your glycogen isn't empty?

6) Training hard is training smart.

[Alcoholiday]

Originally Posted by Jason B

1) Oly Lifts - No. Powerlifts - Yes. It's about muscle tension.

2) Depends on the type of hypertrophy desired. The bodybuilder is after the most hypertrophy possible, and that's sarcomplasmic hypertrophy, best attained with a high volume of moderate intensity work (bodypart splits). And for the record about the drugs, 'bodypart' splits weren't popular until AAS were. Think about it.

3) Failure is very important when training for strength, but must be managed well. For size it's not nearly as crucial, but can still be beneficial, again, in moderation.

4) Fixing posture problems is very important for long term results. It might not make you stronger right away and you might be able to get by without it, but eventually you're going to hurt yourself.

5) No, not as important, but still important. I think the carbs around a workout should be questioned as well, is a super-diabetic blood sugar spike necessary when your glycogen isn't empty?

6) Training hard is training smart.

i pretty much agree w/ jason.

one thing i'll add is that bbers use the same rep range because that's what's been standard for so long. I just read an article in Men's Fitness, on muscle beach. They had an interview w/ a famous bber saying that they never "cut" back then. When they wanted to add mass, they'd do the 8-10 rep range, and then when they want to get lean, they'd up it to 12+ reps.

Plus, it's been standard for so long, that's what is published in damn near every flex magazine article for aspiring bbers.

Start the program, and they never move out of that rep range. Plus, before the internet, where are you going to get your information on training besides flex magazines, or if you're lucky, the gym w/ an experienced BBer.

Of course, muscle gain is always improved with the use of "enhancement."

[MindPower]

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

1) Would bodybuilders be better if they incorporated more Olympic Lifts and Power Lifts?

Probably not, but people looking to become body builders would. see answer2

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

2) If bodybuilding type training (higher volume, higher reps, & less frequency) is so inferior, why is it that (virtually) all bodybuilders train that way? Is it the blind following the blind or is there something with that style of training that’s truly superior regarding hypertrophy? (For the record, both natural and assisted bodybuilders tend to train that way; so for sake of argument and intellectual stimulation, let’s eliminate ergogenic aids as a variable.)

Again it works for bodybuilders, but at what point do you become a "bodybuilder", just because your training to be a bb doesnt necessarily mean your ready for that style of training. Build the foundations first

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

3) How important (or detrimental) is training to (concentric) failure? (We may be looking at two different answers, one for strength and one for hypertrophy.)

Dont know, its a tool in the tool box (im sure thats stolen from someone)

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

4) How much (if any) would trainees benefit by stretching the appropriate muscles and strengthening the weak ones. (Ex: stretching the pecs and subscapularis and strengthening the rhomboids, mid/lower traps, & external rotators.) Would some “prehab” contribute significantly to size and strength gains? Or is this overrated since virtually all powerlifters and bodybuilders are posturally jacked up.

I think its very beneficial, the problem for folks like me (not in the industry, work out at home alone) is identifying weak areas and finding ways of addressing them by myself.

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

5) Whey seems to be best paraworkout; but the studies have all been done fasted – I believe. Would this rapid influx of aminos be as important when one ate just two or three hours ago (prior to training?)

cant help with this one

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

6) Lastly, a simple one (sort of): is it more important to train hard or train smart?

Train Smart

Good questions Dr Clay,

[Frank.S]

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

My primary reason for attending the Summit is to give some of my deeper, dustier neurons some stimulation - and they got it. (I will say that the meeting people portion was just as cool if not better than my cerebral exercise.)

Anyway, here are a few things that make me and Arsenio Hall go hmmm... I'll simply post the question or thought with no input or bias on my part as I want to hear what you all have to say. Later I'll chime in with my 2 cents worth in regards to my own questions.

Scientific evidence (more like extrapolation), anecdotal evidence, and sheer opinions or gut feelings are all welcome.

1) Would bodybuilders be better if they incorporated more Olympic Lifts and Power Lifts?
2) If bodybuilding type training (higher volume, higher reps, & less frequency) is so inferior, why is it that (virtually) all bodybuilders train that way? Is it the blind following the blind or is there something with that style of training that’s truly superior regarding hypertrophy? (For the record, both natural and assisted bodybuilders tend to train that way; so for sake of argument and intellectual stimulation, let’s eliminate ergogenic aids as a variable.)
3) How important (or detrimental) is training to (concentric) failure? (We may be looking at two different answers, one for strength and one for hypertrophy.)
4) How much (if any) would trainees benefit by stretching the appropriate muscles and strengthening the weak ones. (Ex: stretching the pecs and subscapularis and strengthening the rhomboids, mid/lower traps, & external rotators.) Would some “prehab” contribute significantly to size and strength gains? Or is this overrated since virtually all powerlifters and bodybuilders are posturally jacked up.
5) Whey seems to be best paraworkout; but the studies have all been done fasted – I believe. Would this rapid influx of aminos be as important when one ate just two or three hours ago (prior to training?)
6) Lastly, a simple one (sort of): is it more important to train hard or train smart?

1) No. Oly lifts are more about speed/power not hypertrophy. BBers do use power movements..
2) Who said it was inferior? Its probally inferior to always train that way, but for some time, its fine. Actually, great for GPP.
3) I think its important. If your really pushing that 95+% range you are going to fail sometimes. In moderation its good, abuse it and for some it may make recovery harder. I dont know though, I train to failure often and get good results.
4) Undecided.
5) If your not getting enough protien whey is fine. Whole sources are typically always better though. I dont think most people get enough protien, so I think its great.. Plus it saves me a ton of money.
6) Hard. People have made excellent gains on every single type of program you can imagine. Besides, one persons 'training smart' is another persons 'worst workout plan ever'

[gobbla]

Nice thread.

#1. I think O-Lifts are a tool, not the end all of power training. If your goal is to get faster through a plane of motion and it doesn't matter if it's applicable to anything other than lifting weights in that plane of motion doing DE work through any plane would make as much or more sense than doing a clean. More power could probably benefit some BB's, but it shouldn't be stuck in the "you've got to snatch" frame of mind. Power lifts sure, I don't follow the scene but I've heard at least Ronnie Deadlifts, I'm sure they all Bench, most likely Squat. The real concern for me would be to use them for bodybuilding purposes, not to get better at powerlifting. There's a pic somwhere of an ex-powerlifter who got real lean and massive and looks fantastic EXCEPT his lower back is hugely developed in relation to other parts...that's not going to fly for a BB.

#2. There seems to be a theme that for the "average person". BB splits are stupid and I agree with that for the most part. 3x a week 1hr a go will PROBABLY get better results with a full body plan. When you've got a guy that's willing to work out 6 times a week for 2hrs a day (working out in the gym, not an athlete), pulling off a TB program is going to be hard, you almost *have* to do more of a traditional split. Recovery becomes the issue vs getting enough breakdown or stimulus. IMO the problem is when "average person" puts in the 3x1hr a week working "bi's, tri's, and chest", not that the system itself is really broke.

#3. Training to failure isn't really good. Training so you can see the whites of failures eyes, is. If you fail once in a while then you know that you're right on the cusp of what you can do. If you rarely or never fail then you're not pushing yourself. Don't seek it...don't be upset if it happens, and it SHOULD happen every so often.

#4. You can be as fucked up as you want to be as long as you can do what you're training to do. Powerlifters have a very specialized *need*, BB's are going out of their way NOT to be in proportion (compared to normal humans). Normal folk and Athletes could get significant boosts to performance if they're working like they should.

#5. Paranoia about post work out food is a joke. Looking at what it's supposed to do and the studies that measure it...it's "usually" stupid. If you're eating right through the rest of the day then it probably isn't going to make a big enough difference to stress over. Eat food...it breaks down...you work out...it builds you up. Worrying about giving your body fuel AFTER you demand it is like not filling up a car before a road trip. The post workout drink should be thought of as insurance, not as a gold cow.

The exception to the above is for the people that work out 1st thing in the morning or are at a hard calorie deficit that CAN'T have extra goodies floating around in them at workout times. Even then, the cutters should be focusing more on getting a meal an hour or two before and a pre-during drink. (assuming their stomach could handle it).

#6. hard. the combination will rule all

[laxcdn]

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

1) Would bodybuilders be better if they incorporated more Olympic Lifts and Power Lifts?

Arnie and those guys did some powerlifting.

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

2) If bodybuilding type training (higher volume, higher reps, & less frequency) is so inferior, why is it that (virtually) all bodybuilders train that way? Is it the blind following the blind or is there something with that style of training that’s truly superior regarding hypertrophy? (For the record, both natural and assisted bodybuilders tend to train that way; so for sake of argument and intellectual stimulation, let’s eliminate ergogenic aids as a variable.)

Taking steroids lets them recover quicker and train longer. So that style of workout works for them while using.

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

5) Whey seems to be best paraworkout; but the studies have all been done fasted – I believe. Would this rapid influx of aminos be as important when one ate just two or three hours ago (prior to training?)

How long does it take your body to digest food? Isn't it more than an hour.

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

6) Lastly, a simple one (sort of): is it more important to train hard or train smart?

I think training hard and eating smart is better.

[Lisa~]

Wow. The Summit really got your brain to thinking, didn't it?
That's a whole lot of big questions. I'll put my two cents in on a few of them.

1) Would bodybuilders be better if they incorporated more Olympic Lifts and Power Lifts?

Powerlifting—Strength and hypertrophy have a relationship. You need a base of strength for hypertrophy to occur.

Olympic Weightlifting—It might work to use some explosive lifts as a metabolic stimulus when cutting. At the Summit, Alwyn talked about metabolic resistance training being the most important aspect of a fat loss program. Olympic lifting variations are certainly very metabolic. Couldn’t this approach apply to bodybuilders?

2) If bodybuilding type training (higher volume, higher reps, & less frequency) is so inferior, why is it that (virtually) all bodybuilders train that way? Is it the blind following the blind or is there something with that style of training that’s truly superior regarding hypertrophy?

I think criticism of body part splits has focused on their inappropriate application to fat loss programs and their potential to create muscular imbalances. During a hypertrophy phase, assuming the bodybuilder has a base of strength and conditioning (best built by programs other than body part splits), then body part splits can create hypertrophy in specific muscles the bodybuilder needs to bring up to achieve the look he’s working for. But it would still make sense to stay healthy by balancing push/pull and internal/external rotation, which would require some changes to a standard body part split. No matter what your goal, if you’re injured you’re not going to reach it.

During a fat loss phase (or cutting to use bodybuilding terminology), then protocols that include metabolically demanding resistance training and anaerobic HIIT would seem to apply. If cutting could be faster without losing muscle mass, then why not try Alwyn’s methods? He also talked about very lean individuals benefiting from anaerobic HIIT (that mobilizes fatty acids in the bloodstream), five minutes rest, and then doing steady state aerobic exercise to burn the fatty acids out of the bloodstream. Once you’re cutting, a standard body part split might not be the best approach anymore.

3) How important (or detrimental) is training to (concentric) failure? (We may be looking at two different answers, one for strength and one for hypertrophy.)

I think those who have answered this question so far have thought of failure in two different ways—failure from the fatigue of high reps or failure from 1RM attempts (or similar low rep work). I am not going to answer the question. I just wanted to point that out. :p

4) How much (if any) would trainees benefit by stretching the appropriate muscles and strengthening the weak ones. (Ex: stretching the pecs and subscapularis and strengthening the rhomboids, mid/lower traps, & external rotators.) Would some “prehab” contribute significantly to size and strength gains? Or is this overrated since virtually all powerlifters and bodybuilders are posturally jacked up.

The whole theory behind prehab is that if you can correct or prevent muscular imbalances around a joint then it will allow those muscles to function optimally. The desired result is ultimately better function, greater hypertrophy potential, and greater strength in the affected muscles.

There was a similar discussion here on the inclusion of single-leg work in our programming and if its use would lead to greater strength in bilateral movements. There were mixed opinions, but I agreed that if imbalance existed that strength improvements could be gained (and hypertrophy too if you train for hypertrophy). Christian Thibaudeau also addressed the question of bilateral deficits: Unilateral Work for Building Muscle.

6) Lastly, a simple one (sort of): is it more important to train hard or train smart?

I’d say that training hard is a must. Learning to train smarter would make your hard work even more effective.

[twoolf]

Originally Posted by Dr Clay

1) Would bodybuilders be better if they incorporated more Olympic Lifts and Power Lifts?

Bodybuilders, Olympic weightlifters, and powerlifters train for very different results, and therefore need different methods. For a powerlifter, a squat is a competitive event, performed for a max single with specific technique and equipment. For a bodybuilder, a squat is one exercise in the toolbox. Bodybuilders can benefit from strength phases that include deadlifts, squats, and bench presses, but they should not train like powerlifters, because powerlifting is not what they want to compete in.

The Olympic lifts are great for developing speed and explosiveness, but there are more productive ways for a bodybuilder to train for hypertrophy or fat loss.

2) If bodybuilding type training (higher volume, higher reps, & less frequency) is so inferior, why is it that (virtually) all bodybuilders train that way? Is it the blind following the blind or is there something with that style of training that’s truly superior regarding hypertrophy? (For the record, both natural and assisted bodybuilders tend to train that way; so for sake of argument and intellectual stimulation, let’s eliminate ergogenic aids as a variable.)

l don't know, since I don't train as a bodybuilder, and have never trained with high level bodybuilders. Here's what I suspect: for beginner to intermediate trainers lifting 3-5 hours per week, a full body routine is more productive for developing both strength and hypertrophy. For more advanced lifters who want to specialize in hypertrophy and have more time to train, bodypart splits might be more useful.

3) How important (or detrimental) is training to (concentric) failure? (We may be looking at two different answers, one for strength and one for hypertrophy.)

You can get excellent results without ever training to failure. Some people have gotten excellent results with programs that include training to failure. It is a useful method in some programs, if recovery is properly managed, but I would say most people most of the time should not reach concentric failure during regular workouts. (Performance testing is a different matter.)

4) How much (if any) would trainees benefit by stretching the appropriate muscles and strengthening the weak ones. (Ex: stretching the pecs and subscapularis and strengthening the rhomboids, mid/lower traps, & external rotators.) Would some “prehab” contribute significantly to size and strength gains? Or is this overrated since virtually all powerlifters and bodybuilders are posturally jacked up.

I think this is critical -- for performance, for long-term gains, and for injury prevention.

6) Lastly, a simple one (sort of): is it more important to train hard or train smart?

You can't train smart without training hard. Any good program includes hard workouts -- if you don't apply the appropriate intensity in a program, you aren't training smart.

Training hard without training smart will ultimately lead to injury and the setbacks that come with injury.


----------------------
Tom Woolf

[Lisa~]

Originally Posted by twoolf

You can't train smart without training hard. Any good program includes hard workouts -- if you don't apply the appropriate intensity in a program, you aren't training smart.

Training hard without training smart will ultimately lead to injury and the setbacks that come with injury.

Ah. Well said. I like this answer better than the one I posted.

[RobLL]

Originally Posted by Kevin T.

LD: do you have any examples of those stretches and "poor man ART"? My dad has CTS so I think it'd be nice to show him some ways to help ease some pain when it gets bad.

LD - I would like those links too. My forearms suck. Clay diagnosed me in about 4 seconds - I need soft tissue work.

Clay: I doubt that bodybuilders have it very wrong. Just empirically humans are good at usually figuring out the shorter paths to desired results. That said, your question is spot on for that last little bit of edge in competition. I would not be surprised should the top competitors have a few things they only do at home.

[Dr Clay]

Man, you guys (that includes you ladies) are awesome. Good info/opinions here! I love a good intellectual discussion like this. There really is no right or wrong, just various interpretations of the science of exercise (which is in its infancy, I believe).

Let me give my two cents worth on a couple, then I'll come back to the rest a bit later. (Oh, as you can tell there are 6 not 5 as I mentioned in the title - I went back and added one.)

1) Would bodybuilders be better if they incorporated more Olympic Lifts and Power Lifts?

As someone pointed out, many BBers do the power-lifts, though you'd be surprised how many don't deadlift, and many don't squat either. Yep, Ronnie and Jay deadlift, and they have the two best backs in the world. I feel that everyone should either back squat, front squat, or both. Likewise, I can't begin to tell you how many BBers I've worked with who had crappy legs and if they squatted, it was about as deep as a bird bath! Deep squats rule for quad (and even ham/glute) hypertrophy. As for deads, I feel it's hard to build a great back without doing them. However, on this lift I feel that going to the floor (or deep) is of little added benefit. Sure, you'll get more erector involvement, but at what risk? Many people, myself included, have a hard (painful) time doing deads from the floor but from the rack (or hang) is fine. I also think that virtually no direct upper trap work is needed if someone does deads. So, deads are great in my humble opinion. As for the bench press, I think it's overrated for chest development. I think dumbbells are superior. And I think the BB bench promotes shoulder problems (like bicipital tendonitis and AC joint problems like erosion of the clavicle) more so that dumbbells or even the incline BB press. Now that's not to say I don't have people bench or don't bench myself, but it's not really a staple exercise. If it weren't for the fact that it's so glorified by the droves of guys who ask "how much you bench?" I don't think people would do it.


Now, on to the Oly Lifts. I walked away this weekend thinking of how I (and other BBers) could benefit from these. I have from time to time done cleans and clean and presses (usually from a hang) but that's it. Well, after working with Dos (and Alwyn) on these, I have a new appreciation for them. As Lisa mentioned, the metabolic stimulation alone just about makes them worthwhile. But I also feel that the stimulation that your posterior shoulder girdle and interscapular muscles gets would be very advantageous from a functional and cosmetic perspective. Oh, let's not forget the delts themselves. Sure, power is the name of the game here. But if my delts, rhomboids, traps (upper, middle, and lower), infraspinatus, and teres minor are all more powerful (recruit more motor units faster), then I'll think I'll benefit from a growth and strength perspective. And simply from an A to P (anterior to posterior - front to back) perspective, Oly lifts are great because they stimulate the external rotators and interscapular muscles (heck, let's just call it the "upper back"), which tends to be severely lacking in development.


Alwyn and I were brainstorming on how to incorporate these lifts into a body part split routine. I'm working on fine-tuning a new program for myself based on just that. I'll keep you posted on how it goes. I'm also going to do another experiement on myself (based upon a Summit idea) that I'll tell you about later. The results of these experiments will be easily viewable in about 18 weeks as I'll (likely) be competing again. (Standing on stage in your panties in front of seven judges and hundreds of people is a great way to identify the strengths and weaknesses of ones physique!)

I'm getting repetive stress problems from so much typing, so I'll come back to the other questions. Please continue with your thoughts/ideas.

And yes, Rob, your forearms do suck! But the good news is, they'll get better if you'll take care of them.

[andrew_plamondon]

Originally Posted by Michael Roussell

I wonder about this too. It would be good to have study in which the subjects are fed and then 2 hours later undergo a workout with CHO/PRO drink

Did you see Tipton's study where he compared a pre/PWO drink versus 2 PWO drinks ? It's the closest I can think of. There were also studies which compared the composition of pre-workout meals on some factors but they usually are high carb vs high fat anyway. It would be nice to see a study in a non-fasted sample though, comparing pre/during or post-workout drinks.

[Michael Roussell]

Originally Posted by Frank.S

1) No. Oly lifts are more about speed/power not hypertrophy. BBers do use power movements..

Not hypertrophy?

[Mike D]

Only two cents to add as per Mike's pic post . . .
As Chad Waterbury indicated, once a stauration volume of 24-36 reps occurs in a movement, hypertrophy typically follows.

Stayley added that those Olympic lifters who easily log this volume in a pull session do indeed show the growth in the prime movers ( trap/delt . .erectors . .quads if they do a front squat component )

So IMHO 8x3 in cleans, etc. could indeed create real growth . .
BUT
With speed added in, there's a risk to benefit ratio that comes into question . . and prudent warm ups, qualified core strength, absence of injuries all come into play.

With the powerlifts, there's greater control in the movement so possible a little less risk.
Again I defer to Chad though, that technical skill in the lifts take away some of the growth stimulus . . .you become efficient so there's less overload to the muscle ( dare I say, less motor units fired for the lift . .)

Sorry if I meandered there . . kind of like the hallway chats eh Dr. Clay ?
Cheers all

[Dr Clay]

Good point, Mike. That is certainly hypertrophy. Precisely what fuels this debate (at least it's a debate in my overactive head).

On to my next question.

2) If bodybuilding type training (higher volume, higher reps, & less frequency) is so inferior, why is it that (virtually) all bodybuilders train that way? Is it the blind following the blind or is there something with that style of training that’s truly superior regarding hypertrophy? (For the record, both natural and assisted bodybuilders tend to train that way; so for sake of argument and intellectual stimulation, let’s eliminate ergogenic aids as a variable.)

I essentially think that there are multiple ways to skin a cat, as the saying goes. My instinct (and most of my opinions are, in some way, also shaped/supported by research) is that higher volume, lower-intensity training (commom amongst bodybuilders) is optimal for promoting non-functional hypertrophy. Most say this is hypertrophy of the sarcoplasmic reticulum, etc. Let's just say it's primarily not hypertrophy of the contractile elements (the muscle fibers). Though Waterbury disagrees that this sort of hypertrophy is of much consideration, I think it is. Part of my belief is on the anecdotal observation that most BBers that train this way, especially if their reps are virtually always 12 or more, have a "soft" look to their muscles as opposed to a hard, dense look. Take Flex Wheeler for example. It's well known that he trained light, but with ample volume. While he had a great physique (best ever IMO), his muscles weren't dense or grainy looking. On the other end of the spectrum, look at Dorian Yates. Dorian lifted heavy (recruiting more fast-twitch motor units) and had a dense look to his muscles. Likewise, Skip LaCour is a great example of a dense-looking bb'er who lifts heavy (4-6 reps).

So, if I'm right, BB'ers could benefit by spending some time training heavy and fast to maximize motor unit recruitment (neurological efficiency) and simultaneously maximize hypertrophy of the fast-twitch (IIB) muscle fibers. Then, they could spend time training in the other realm to maximize non-functional hypertrophy. Oh, (almost forgot) I feel that another benefit of higher-rep training is that it promotes maximum pump. Hang on now, I'm not done! I realize the pump and bringing blood and nutrients to the muscle is psuedo-science to get you to buy some arginine-based crap. BUT, I think the "pump" has one favorable effect: stretching fascia. Repeatedly getting a great pump (especially if coupled with stretching) can, over time, cause the fascia to expand. And many (myself included) thing that the fascia is one limiting factor in hypertrophy. Again, this is just my opinion - I don't think there are any pump/fascia-stretch studies floating around.

So, to summarize my rambling, bodybuilders get swole cause they're full of non-functional (and of course some functional) hypertrophy and some stretched fascia. However, a smart bodybuilder (I know of at least one), would maximize ALL components of hypertrophy and spend some time power/speed training in order to ultimately target all aspects of the muscle.

I'll be the first to say I have not spent enough time training heavy (and zero time on speed/Olympic Lift type stuff), partly cause I just didn't want to. I wanted high-volume training to be right 'cause I liked training that way. Well, I've been competing at the same damned weight (about 198) for years now, too. So it's time for me to use my noggin' a bit and do what I feel is actually optimal. We'll see if this combo-training will push me over the edge.

(Sorry for the long-winded post. I tend to type and talk in circles.)

[Mike D]

So your saying use every tool in the box ?

Actually, much of what you say rings of time I spent with Vince Gironda a good 20+ years ago . . we did in fact run the gamut of 5x5 to 10x10, down the rack, supersetting and absolutley non-functional exercises . . and the results were great.

I think the question that follows is does one attempt multiple systems concurrently or periodize each stimulus . . .Work 3 weeks up to "Yates" protocol and then take a week of "Wheeler's" style to work within the month long paradigm ?

[kuri]

Dr. Clay, I'm enjoying your thoughts here. I work with some trainers that have done BB style training for years that are now finding value in using O-lifts and other protocols to bring up not only their upper backs/posterior chain but help with shoulder/hip issues resulting from sticking to one modality for years.

Developing more speed and power never hurts either. Spending some time to up strength & power would allow one to go heavier at a 8-12 rep range thus spurring greater hypertrophy no?

[Dr Clay]

Originally Posted by Mike D

I think the question that follows is does one attempt multiple systems concurrently or periodize each stimulus . . .Work 3 weeks up to "Yates" protocol and then take a week of "Wheeler's" style to work within the month long paradigm ?

GREAT question; that's what I'm thinking through now. It'll probably turn into an article which I'll alert you guys to.

[Dr Clay]

Originally Posted by kuri

Dr. Clay, I'm enjoying your thoughts here. Thanks

Developing more speed and power never hurts either. Spending some time to up strength & power would allow one to go heavier at a 8-12 rep range thus spurring greater hypertrophy no?

Precisely! And spending time with 15 (and maybe up to 20) reps would allow one to get 11 reps with a weight that previously allowed for only 10.

Off to the lab - I mean gym...

[youngliver]

Most of what I would say has already beed said here so I will try not to repeat much but just a few comments...



2) If bodybuilding type training (higher volume, higher reps, & less frequency) is so inferior, why is it that (virtually) all bodybuilders train that way? Is it the blind following the blind or is there something with that style of training that’s truly superior regarding hypertrophy? (For the record, both natural and assisted bodybuilders tend to train that way; so for sake of argument and intellectual stimulation, let’s eliminate ergogenic aids as a variable.)

I think that if you eliminate the ergogenic aids, you take the main reason that body split training works for bodybuilders. Basically the drugs are creating the hypertrophy. As long as you are doing SOME kind of training, hypertrophy will occur. I think this is the reason that I really dislike the rags like M&F, Flex, etc. that publish the routines they do.



5) Whey seems to be best paraworkout; but the studies have all been done fasted – I believe. Would this rapid influx of aminos be as important when one ate just two or three hours ago (prior to training?)

Good question. But I will go with my gut, you mentioned that was a legitimate reason to respond, and say that with the release of so many hormones while training, anabolic and catabolic, that anything that will help take advantage of the anabolic and fend off the catabolic can't be bad.



6) Lastly, a simple one (sort of): is it more important to train hard or train smart?[/quote]

Someone mentioned the Cosgrove quote, which I agree with. I think as long as you train hard and don't train stupid, if that makes sense. Basically as long as your aren't doing something that will end in injury but are training with a lot of intensity, you will have decent gains. For a while anyway.

[Jeff Rage]

1) Yes. For the natural lifter, you need to get strogner to get bigger.
2) I'd guess the BB mags are partly to blame. Also, those who take lots of drugs can get good results for training that way.
3) Natural lifters should avoid going to failure.