Workout Routine
- Thread starter monty2589
- Start date
i have put the volume low because he is a beginer, he can concentrate on the main compounds ..lifting correctly.and adding weight, as he gets more experienced he can change the sets up.2,15s..3,10s...6,5s..keeping the volume equal overall.bipennate said:
i and many others on the hypertrophy-specific forum do squats and deads together no problem.
i work the push pull upperbody to 3;2.
bench.
shoulderpress
dips.push 3
deadlift
chins pull 2
squats quads and hammies
deads quads and hammies how do you get 4;2
Last edited:
Bench, chins, shoulder press, dips=4 upper body movementsbuzz said:i have put the volume low because he is a beginer, he can concentrate on the main compounds ..lifting correctly.and adding weight, as he gets more experienced he can change the sets up.2,15s..3,10s...6,5s..keeping the volume equal overall.
i and many others on the hypertrophy-specific forum do squats and deads together no problem.
i work the push pull upperbody to 3;2.
bench.
shoulderpress
dips.push 3
deadlift
chins pull 2
squats quads and hammies
deads quads and hammies how do you get 4;2
squats & deads=2 lower body movements
Of course, deads invovle the entire posterior chain, but dynamically they only involve lower body and a bit of the illiocostalis, so i wouldn't consider this to be upper back-specific. Nor would I classify squats as a hamstring movement, especially if we aren't controlling for squat depth or form. At most, 30% of the movement (combined eccentric & concentric) can be attributed to the hamstrings, which makes the technique a quad-dominant activity. Also, There is no justification to overstimulating upper push unless for rehabilitation or postural corrections...the ratio of strength forces on the glenohumeral joint should ideally be 1:1 for proper orientation, something that few people actually have. You are taking something that at best is properly aligned and making it worse, increasing the risk for a number of pathologies at the joint.
There is no question that volume should be kept low for a newbie, but one set does not allow for enough exposure to improve technique.
bipennate said:
Did you not quote, in your own study, that intensity is a factor affecting the results of your workouts? Your study, again, does not account for intensity. In the section discussing the results of older adults, they used 8 rep sets but as well all know, overloading your muscles with high weight, low reps is optimal for muscle growth. Again, "what is superior" between using a fixed frequency such as 1 muscle group per 5-7 days with altered intensity (low reps, high weight, high intensity) has yet to be proven. So your study is erroneous since you cannot compare 2x/week and 1x/week using the same workout. The medium repitition range obviously gives the advantage to 2x/week in this case since it is not of optimal intensity for 1x/week.
Plus, supplements help slow down muscle degradation but also increase muscle recovery rate. That is one of the reasons bodybuilders such as Ronnie Coleman can workout at a high intensity so often.
I've gotten plenty of results (and still am) going 1x/week and an expert such as yourself should acknowledge that there is no one way to workout.
Last edited:
All studies in that article used the same inter-control variables: they were testing frequency stimulus. What else would they have done? Your stadement is not valid.big angry hippo said:
"Supplements" do no such thing, other than basic PWO meal attenuation of protein degredation. STEROIDS do, however. If you are on steroids, then by all means, do what the bodybuilders do...but then you'll have a lot more to worry about then just when to "do your curls."
Self-reporting is the lowest level of analysis. The question is not "will this work": of course it will. Anything will work to some extent. This doesn't mean that it's optimal.
"No one way to work out" does not mean "anything is good." There are numerous variables, absolutely, but what you are arguing is going against proven physiology. Period. Study after study shows this, especially when you focus on advanced lifters. Sure, it "works," but why would you want to perform something that is sub-optimal?
I will be away at a conference this weekend, but I will leave you with this, something that I wrote for another board. I look forward to your response:
There are a number of issues with a multi-split (MS) routine that causes them to be both hazardous for long term health and functioning, and inefficient for long-term sustained growth and hypertrophy.
The human body is designed to work in totality, not in isolation. And while one can analyze specific movement patterns and term them 'isolated' movements, in general, we move through and manipulate the space and environment around us through multi-planer, mutli-joint coordinated movements. The development of 'large' muscles and 'small' muscles and their placement on the body is not done by chance: we are constructed through evolution to have a complete system of skeletal muscles that allow us to perform multiple tasks efficiently and purposefully. It is not designed to isolate individual muscles for specific tasks, but to use as many muscles as are available to perform the given function.
When you attempt to artificially isolate a muscle/muscle group, you are breaking this design, which has implications on joint health, connective tissue stability, neuromuscular coordination, bone densities, and the development of speed, strength, power, and function. The use of a large selection of single joint isolation exercises is a significant failing of MS routine design, which is due to the specific methodology of attempted muscular isolation for localized hypertrophy of individual muscles apart from their natural inclusion in a total kinesthetic chain. Multi-joint movements are also difficult to place into a MS routine because of the complexity of the gross muscular innervation of these exercises and an innability to classify the primary mover while ignoring the innervation of other 'unwanted' muscles/muscle groups. By artificially isolating the anatomical heads of the deltoid, for instance, in an attempt to produce maximum hypertrophy of each, the potential to develop an imbalance (where there previously would not have been) between the forces acting on the glenohumeral joint is significantly increased. This can lead to serious shoulder injuries, damage, or pathologies (1). Muscles are designed to work as systems, and to develop and gain strength as a total system, not in an artificial isolation.
Most isolation movements, such as the dumbbell fly, are particularly inefficient in providing proper loading to produce useable adaptations throughout the ROM as well (2). Not only will this develop substantial strain on the agonist at the weakest point within the ROM, it will cause additional stress on the joint and ligamentous structure that protects the joint in an unnatural manner in comparison to real-world functional movement, which does not prepare the individual for sport-specific or life-needs strength and joint stability (3). Ultimately, this methodology will lead to a greater occurrence of musculotendinous trauma, joint instability, and loss of function.
For the implicit desire of localized muscular hypertrophy, isolation exercise may potentially be able to produce a greater localized serum endocrine response over that of compound movements; however, it is the nature of MS routines that ultimately makes this an inferior choice for total hormonal response. The specific loading coupled with volume for optimal endocrine response is found with the manipulation of the greatest number of muscle fibers recruited for an exercise, large muscle group movements, at >85% 1RM for multiple sets (4,5). By the nature of human muscle force and physiology, intensity is inversely related to volume, and as volume increases, intensity must decrease (4,5,6). A MS routine, while utilizing a large volume, must suffer from a decreased intensity of force production, seeking less than maximal/near maximal fiber recruitment and neuromuscular activity for the sake of exercise volume. This is not, therefore, optimal in producing the largest amount of the widest variety of hormones responsible for human muscle tissue hypertrophy, such as testosterone, GH, IGF-1, and thyroid hormones. This is also not optimal for producing maximal increased muscular adaptations of Type II muscle fibers because significant loading is not achieved. Further, it is this continued stimulation of large motor units that will allow for continued growth, with adaptations occurring at the neural level after genetic potential reaches its zenith.(7) It is postulated that hypertrophy will be most prevalent in strength athletes or weightlifters that utilize training protocols of 90-100% of 1RM voluntary contractile force (8), which is not possible in a high volume routine. Additionally, it appears that intensity/load chosen has a far greater effect on muscle size and strength than does volume within a workout design and exercise program (9).
The advantage of increased frequency and total microcycle volume of full-body (FB) workouts or simple splits (SS) when compared to multi-split program designs must also be acknowledged: The frequency of stimulus plays a critical role in increasing muscle strength and size through adaptive gene expression (5,10,11), and this clearly favors FB and SS over MS routine designs.
The natural, drug-free athlete cannot contend with the significant volume of work on the skeletal muscle system in a typical bodybuilder MS routine, nor does such a routine allow for optimal rest periods of limited but sufficient time for physiological adaptation to occur, and produces incomplete rest periods coupled with rest periods that are too long in duration(5), by the nature of the haphazard pairing of muscles. MS routines also have a serious affect on CNS recovery, which is thought to be responsible for increased incident of Overreaching and Overtraining syndrome, leading to more time off and more time spent away from the field of play or the gym (4). Proper rest intervals that allow for CNS recovery will allow the athlete to continue in competition or in resistance training with continued adaptation and growth. Most importantly, the contention that significant damage and subsequent increased rest periods are superior in producing hypertrophy in skeletal muscle tissue is not supported by the literature (5,12).
1. J Biomech. 1990;23(5):405-15. Glenohumeral muscle force and moment mechanics in a position of shoulder instability. Bassett RW, Browne AO, Morrey BF, An KN.
2. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 May;19(2):449-52. Electromyographic activity of the pectoralis major and anterior deltoid muscles during three upper-body lifts. Welsch EA, Bird M, Mayhew JL.
3. American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol 24, Issue 4 518-527. A comparison of tibiofemoral joint forces and electromyographic activity during open and closed kinetic chain exercises. KE Wilk, RF Escamilla, GS Fleisig, SW Barrentine, JR Andrews and ML Boyd
4. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning/National Strength and Conditioning Association; Thomas Baechle, Roger Earle, editors, 2nd Ed. 2000.
5. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. Manipulating resistance training program variables to optimize maximum strength in men: a review. B Tan. 1999
6. Strength & Conditioning Journal, Volume 21, Number 2. Periodization: Effects of manipulating volume and intensity—Part 1. MH Stone, HS O'Bryant, et al.
7. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 25–32. The Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading on Strength, Muscle Hypertrophy, and Neural Adaptations in Trained Individuals
JASON P. BRANDENBURG, and DAVID DOCHERTY
8. Hypertrophy and Hyperplasia: Adaptations of Muscular Tissue to Various Resistance Training Protocols. Anton Luis Sevilla. 2003.
9. Effect of resistance training volume on strength and muscle thickness.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 28(10):1311-1320, October 1996.
STARKEY, DAVID B.; POLLOCK, MICHAEL L., et. al.
10. Effect of training frequency and specificity on isometric lumbar extension strength. Spine, Vol. 15, No. 6. 1990. JE Graves, ML Pollock, et. al.
11. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997 Dec;29(12):1646-52. Muscular adaptation and strength during the early phase of eccentric training: influence of the training frequency. Sorichter S, Mair J, Koller A, et. al.
12. Acute adaptation to low volume eccentric exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 33(7):1213-1219, July 2001. PADDON-JONES, DOUGLAS; ABERNETHY, PETER J.
u guys just totally schooled me; thanks. il stick to full bodies from now on 2 times a week. Is it better to do it 3 times a week?
Cynic said:
: ) thanks so much for the help through this whole thing- it was really hazerdous for me to creat my own plan
thanks
i do full squats so would class them as a quad hamstring exercise..and deads to a certain extent.bipennate said:
i agree the deadlift is mainly a lower back exercise.
the reason i put upper lower 4;2 is because quit simply there are more upper body parts than lower body parts.
studies have shown that one set is enough if done correctly especially for a begginer,the more your body adapts the more volume you need.
and i must admitt i forgot to put in low pulley rows
this would have evened it out a bit more.
dont get me wrong i agree with most of what you say if you have been reading of dans site then you must know your stuff.
as far as isos go i dont recomend them for begginers think of it like this.
you dont do isolated movements in the real world so why train that way
In a study performed at Montclair State University5 researchers investigated the effect of a single set vs. a multiple set routine on increasing upper body strength. They had the subjects perform either one set or three sets of bench press, incline dumbbell press and flat dumbbell flies using ten reps, three times per week for 12 weeks. This kind of study has been done before but this one is particularly valuable because it involved previously "trained" subjects. This is significant because untrained subjects will usually respond positively to virtually any training routine. Just because a training strategy works for beginners doesn't mean it will work for experienced lifters. These researchers found that doing a single set of each exercise was equally effective as doing three sets of the same movements in increasing the subjects one repetition maximum (1RM) on bench press. The take home message is that you needn't do more than a single work set to achieve the same relative gains of doing multiple sets. This makes incorporating a whole body workout into your schedule much more feasible.
buzz said:
but is this consistent with hypertrophy? its possible to gain strength and not mass correct?
buzz said:
YES i love hearing that b/c i hate endless sets
. but i dont know what hypertrophy is but is sounds like it has something to do with building muscle? define:hypertophy?
Do you have that study available to view? I saw 3 studies today at the NSCA conference (all experienced subjects on long term, 8-10 week studies) today that show the exact opposite results, as well as one that is currently being conducted which shows prliminary results that HIT produces statistically inferior results in producing hypertrophy.buzz said:
The HIT methodology has been disproven repeatedly in clinical study again and again. This is clearly shown in study after study.
I agree with ^.
Not to mention the HIT methodology is misleading. They say one set to failure (with quite a few warm up sets) but they also hit quite a few movements per muscle group.
If wanted, studies that directly contradict each other can be dragged up on any subject. But in terms of strength training, if you just do one set then you're missing out two important aspects that have to be looked at together...intensity and load.
Not to mention the HIT methodology is misleading. They say one set to failure (with quite a few warm up sets) but they also hit quite a few movements per muscle group.
If wanted, studies that directly contradict each other can be dragged up on any subject. But in terms of strength training, if you just do one set then you're missing out two important aspects that have to be looked at together...intensity and load.
whoa please dont put me in the HIT follower bracket as far as i am concerned HIT is crap..and i dont recomend 1set ..only for begginers as you
become more advanced you need more volume.this is the study
Curto MA., Fisher MM. The effect of single vs. Multiple sets of resistance exercise on strength in trained males. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S114, 1999
become more advanced you need more volume.this is the study
Curto MA., Fisher MM. The effect of single vs. Multiple sets of resistance exercise on strength in trained males. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S114, 1999
bipennate said:
But then how could you work muscle groups multiple times per week at 3 (or more) sets each? Wouldn't that stick you in the gym a bit long for a full body workout or 6 days out of 7 for a split (god forbid)?
bipennate said:
I don't think compound lifts are difficult to place into a multi-split routine at all. Bench press, dead lift, squats, pull ups etc...why can't they be included? I don't see why you're placing ms routines into the same category as single joint movements...
Previously, I realize the number of reps were controls. I'm just saying that the particular study you quoted is not applicable to the subject at debate since 1x/week requires high volume and would not be effective at 8 rep sets. Check out this link cynic posted: http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459411
There are just so many different variations involved, how can one say that because 2x/week is more effective with 8 rep sets, it'll be more effective than 1x/week in every type of routine?
I'm not arguing 2x/week is not an effective method. But I believe that not even you can say 1x/week is "awful" when, in fact, it is plenty effective when trained properly.
http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/supplements-reviews/glutamine-side-effects-benefits.htm
Perhaps false advertising? I'm pretty sure glutamine is not a steroid that aids muscle recovery.
If you would, would you care to donate a routine for me (at an intermediate level)? Thanks for reading, I'll be waiting for your reply.
Jonathon or anyone for that matter, just curious, did you pull up that study if so can you email it to me at dan_moore@hypertrophy-research.com , if not I'll pull it up.bipennate said:
Also in that same supplement issue there two others that would be an interesting read
EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TIMES OF CONCENTRIC MUSCLE ACTIONS ON STRENGTH, HYPERTROPHY, SPECIFIC TENSION, AND TRAINING VOLUME IN RESISTANCE- TRAINED WOMEN.
E. M. Gillies; D. Dochery
INCREASED CONTRACTILE RFD AND NEUROMUSCULAR ACTIVATION INDUCED BY HEAVY-RESISTANCE STRENGTH TRAINING.
P. Aagaard; E. B. Simonsen; J. L. Andersen; S. P. Magnusson; J. Halkjaer-Kristensen; P. Dyhre-Poulsen
Just a quick note than I'll bow out of this as it appears to have been exhausted already anyway.
What Ron and I have wrote in those series of articles is based on viewing many studies by various research groups, the point being is that there are many variables that need to be identified before anyone can say one set is as effective as multiple or the 1X week is as effective as 3. Rhea has a really nice meta on strength gains with multiple sets and of course you can also view Otto/Carpinelli's work showing 1 set is sufficient, so in my mind and based on what I have researched the best is.. do what ever volume you can do that allows sufficient time between workouts, enough so there is no appreciable loss in force and from session to session.
BTW, I tend to agree with Jonathon that HIT has been disproven as the MOST effective training method for growth, strength endurance maybe/maybe not, the whole concept of having to inflict a great amount of inroad is foolish, why choose the term inroad anyway, why not just call it fatigue as everyone else does, anyway, the level of fatigue acheivement hasn't been shown to be a primary cause of growth.
Great work guys
Last edited:
big angry hippo said:
Yes, there was an article I read comparing high intensity vs high volume (I keep forgetting to bookmark these for later reference) that said basically, neither one was better than the other, but you can't take any one article in isolation. The article your citing covers only sets/reps/rest. It says nothing about exercise selection and frequecy. The high intensity vs. high volume argument is independant of frenquency. Whole other animal.
I'm trying to find it, but there is an article on t-nation, by The Thib giving a discourse on how often to train. It's very good on showing when the body starts to lose it's training effect. I'll keep looking, but I don't know how long ago it was.
The field is constantly in motion. I used to stretch before lifting, then I heard stretching pre-workout fatigues the muscle, but one should do PWO stretching. Then someone on MH posted an article by a french researching showing even PWO stretching hurts recovery.
So now, we have a choice between two evils. Fatigue the muscle pre-workout, or lengthen the recovery period PWO.
I'll still continue to do my higher frequency 2-day split because I've seen tremendous gains. If I hadn't injured my back in Oct and now, just last week, I suspect I would have at least doubled my deadlift and bench press by my one year anniversary.
Last edited: