Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Fitness, Strength & CrossFit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2010, 10:04 AM   #31
Dave Van Skike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,738
Default

legit question, steven. do you only let them do the hi rep back off sets after they have stalled?

high reps do a couple things in my mind that are very positive (again, mostly me, sample size N=1).

thing one:
reinforce technique and cues under fatigue. it's real easy to figure out your own particular weak points and efficient ways to move through them when you're doing light weight for reps while fatigued. it's ver easy, in these cases to indentify and correct your own "20%" slop.

thing two: confidence.
very often after working up to a significant number, let's say the goal was a triple at a set weight, even if the tripel was a brutal struggle, taking a chunk of weight off the bar and then cranking out a set of ten can be confidence inspiring. for some folks, they'll quickly be hitting for sets of ten weights they had been struggling for 5's not many weeks before.

does this make sense?
__________________
Practical Strength
Dave Van Skike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 12:42 PM   #32
Steven Low
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091
Default

Depends.

If they have good technique from the get go then go with the program as rx'd.

If they have mobility issues then you may have to spend more time working with them on technique. Higher amounts of repetitions are definitely good in this case, and safer as you don't have to load up the heavy weights.

Add in the stuff you said and you have legit need for higher reps.

Also, if someone is developing sore joints (from overuse) then backing off to lighter high reps is also a good idea. Lighter work (8-15 reps) is very good for connective tissue rehab. Sometimes even more reps than that.


It all depends. If they can handle the lower reps right away and carry on for months I like that base first. You get a nice combo of strength + hypertrophy and then you can go from there whether you want to go whether more hypertrophy, athletics, strength, plifting, etc.
__________________
Posts NOT intended as professional medical, training or nutrition advice.
Site // Bodyweight Strength Training Article // Overcoming Gravity Bodyweight Book
Steven Low is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 06:51 PM   #33
Anoop Balachandran
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
If some novice is coming to me I'm gonna put them on Starting Strength + GOMAD for hypertrophy. Then if they wanna do some high rep work after they stall out on linear progression thats great.

I'm pretty sure I don't need studies to tell me that this works. And if I did then what Shaf is saying seems more or less about right.
I am pretty sure that’s not how evidence based approach works.

Evidence based studies combine the “best” available evidence and the individual expertise. So if you don’t have studies, you look for biological plausibility.

  • Studies ( Reviews, RCT’s, )
  • Basic science or plausibility
  • Individual expertise.

For a beginner routine for muscle growth, we know from reviews and taking a plausibility approach:

1. One or two sets is enough
2. 2-3 times full body workouts( higher frequency is better)
3. 1-2 exercises per body part
4. A periodized routine is superior
5. Multi-joint exercises are better

And take this workout to a body building site, they will clearly say since the reps are below 8 it is more of strength than a hypertrophy workout and no isolation exercises. Just like you have your anecdotes, they will have them too. What will be your reply?

Quote:
Fact of the matter is I used to have time to do read, debate, and write super long posts.. but it's just too time consuming and boring to do that now. Now I tend to write one liners for most everything if possible.
I like to keep it to the point too if you read my articles.


Quote:
This does not mean I don't keep reading studies and researching stuff, but if someone is going to be questioning ME why something works they can go do that research for themselves. I will point them in the right direction. I'm not a beck and call Q&A machine (unless you're paying me for it in which case I'll answer all the questions you want).
Yes, that’s understandable. And I don’t think that matters in this discussion.


Quote:
If someone wants to go DO research then by all means go for it. Just make sure your studies are well made because at least 90% of the crap coming out now in pubmed is sample size <15. It's terrible.
There is no standard for sample size and a large sample size is not always good. It usually depend on the number of dependent variables and they usually get it from a a power analysis. Good researchers know all that stuff. Most of the studies I pick from prominent labs. And you usually don’t go by just one study anyways.

When it comes to elite athletes or studies on rare diseases, lower sample size is generally accepted.

Quote:
What work is what works period. I'd LOVE to know the mechanisms behind why it works, but I don't NEED them.
Nobody said you need them. It only helps to have some critical thinking abilities, especially when there are 100's progarms & diets out there. And they all claim to WORK.

Here is something from Alan Aragon about the “why in one his articles:

"Question fitness advice given to you by others. “Why” is one of the most powerful words you can put in your vocabulary. Investigating the reasoning behind the advice will often reveal that the answer is “just because”, rendering the advice anywhere from helpful, to dangerous, to just a plain waste of time and resources. I encourage my clients, students, and colleagues to question everyone’s advice, including mine. I firmly believe that the better you can sharpen your thinking, the better you can continue to sharpen your physique."
Anoop Balachandran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 11:31 PM   #34
Dave Van Skike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,738
Default

you really don't get it. At All.
__________________
Practical Strength
Dave Van Skike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 10:16 AM   #35
Steve Shafley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,285
Default

When you are talking "evidence based training" to a forum full of novices and newbies, then maybe you are telling them something they didn't know. When you are talking about "evidence based training" to a group of people, 99% of whom either:

a. know more than you
b. are bigger and stronger than you
c. a + b
d. just don't want to read your rambling prose

Maybe it's like you're a snake-handling, homeschooling, ditchwater pentacostal who's speaking in tongues to a group of dignified Catholic scholars.

It doesn't matter what you say. We're just not buying your particular brand.
Steve Shafley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 12:16 PM   #36
Geoffrey Thompson
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 227
Default

Also, as an FYI, there are very few people on this board who care about muscle growth per se. Most people here are performance-oriented. High reps or low reps for muscle growth? The people here grow our muscles by getting strong because most of us care most about getting strong (or improving performance in some sport, often by getting strong). So we would probably, at the end of the day, say low reps, damn the science, unless you somehow prove that I should be doing 8 rep sets of snatches.
Geoffrey Thompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 04:59 PM   #37
Anoop Balachandran
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Also, as an FYI, there are very few people on this board who care about muscle growth per se. Most people here are performance-oriented. High reps or low reps for muscle growth?
I guess you are right.

I should have read carefully the forum subsection which says: Mass Gain: “Discussions of training for functional muscle mass and other weight gain topics”.


Quote:
The people here grow our muscles by getting strong because most of us care most about getting strong (or improving performance in some sport, often by getting strong) So we would probably, at the end of the day, say low reps, damn the science.
And the study shows exactly that. There is no difference between 1-5 or 8-12 reps for muscle growth because protein synthesis for both rep ranges is the same. Though everyone says 8-12 reps is the best range.

I only posted that link because someone some posted a link to another article here and there was some discussions on it and I came across it. And accidentally read the title” Advancing the Science of Athletic Performance” and Mass Gain subsection and felt the scientific study would be interesting thread.

Honestly, not sure why there is so much hostility against me. I am not trying to sell anything . I don’t even have a freaking ad on my website. And I am here on a site littered with products and ads.

All I said was science is better than anecdotes and evidence-based approach does include individual judgment and experience. And you can have the best of both worlds.

I remember in Dante's forum( Diggcrap) argued I against their no carbs after 6 pm rule. I instantly got pummeled with "we are bigger and stronger and we have results". Sounds a lot similar here too.

And what really does that mean on your header "Advancing the science of athletic performance".
Anoop Balachandran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 05:07 PM   #38
Mark Fenner
Member
 
Mark Fenner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 165
Default

Is this really a 4, going on 5, page thread discussing (1) whether the scientific method is a particularly good method with which to investigate the world and (2) whether or not it is particularly hard to apply the scientific method to athletic performance?

I just want to keep things clear in my head.

Best,
Mark
Mark Fenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 05:28 PM   #39
Anoop Balachandran
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Is this really a 4, going on 5, page thread discussing (1) whether the scientific method is a particularly good method with which to investigate the world
It wasn't until people in this forum started going off a tangent and questioning science.

Quote:
and (2) whether or not it is particularly hard to apply the scientific method to athletic performance?
There are certain studies which will not do shit worth for application.

And there are studies which has an application in the field, like the one I posted in the thread. And these are not the norm.

So it is not an either/ or debate as most people make out of it.
Anoop Balachandran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 06:34 PM   #40
Geoffrey Thompson
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anoop Balachandran View Post
I guess you are right.

I should have read carefully the forum subsection which says: Mass Gain: “Discussions of training for functional muscle mass and other weight gain topics”.
Well, fair enough.
Geoffrey Thompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 07:33 PM
Dave Van Skike
This message has been deleted by Dave Van Skike. Reason: waste of time
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Subscribe to our Newsletter


Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.
ASK GREG

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question
WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
About
Help
Newsletter
Products & Services
Gym
Store
Seminars
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
Issues
Articles
Workouts
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Resources
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator