New Routine for you ALL TO TRY! LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK

Here is a new program i devised that can focus on either strength, hypertrophy or both...i got the idea from gopro's periodization scheme and from reading articles that outline charles polquin's ideologies...i started it today and almost passed out it was great....legs feel fantastic!


here it is ladies and gents...please look it over and give it a try i'm curious to know if anyone has good results with it...try it exactly for 2 weeks and critique after if you feel it is necessary...

Tenx -

Your workout looks good but you don't mention how many sets per exercise. Also you are doing some kind of upper body "pressing" exercises three days in a row.....I think my triceps would be fried by Thursday.

I hope you see some good results!!

Why do people think feeling sick is a good sign? Why do people think being sore is a good sign?

And if you don't mind, can you explain why your routine is structured this way? For example, if your goal is strength, why would you do 80% of your work in the 5-10 rep range? How is that strength training? And why the 3-5 minute rest periods during "phase 3"? For that matter, why are the rest periods set to what they are for all the phases?

Please don't take it critically, I am just asking your reasoning.

I feel sick is a good sign when i do legs because i know i'm pushing my body to the limit...i cut down my rest time thats why i felt light headed and i was also tired i was not equating that into an amazing workout. I only consider sore as a good sign when i deviate from the norm in my training and feel sore i know im shocking my muscles...thats just me, maybe...

my specific goal is strength...the way you structure the program is up to you...maybe i posted the wrong workout or the incomplete version....much like P/RR/S you can taylor these weeks to fit your need...

if you want strength then you can have the majority of your weeks in the 2-6 rep range...if its hypertrophy then 6-12...

3-5 minute rest in phase three becase you are using submaximal weight near your 1rep max...you need the extra time to fully recover as your desire is strength no hypertrophy...when looking for hypertrophy you cut your rest time down to around 60-90 seconds between each set... the rest phases increase with each phase because the intensity and weights increase and proportionally you need more rest time to recuperate...does that no make sense to you?

as far as sets per exercise i like to keep it to a traditional 3..sometimes on the latter ones where you are more isolated like dumbell flyes i sometimes only do 2 sets as i feel stimulated...depends on the day and how i feel...

the days are not consecutive they are made to fit into a four day program for instance i do

mon,tues,thurs,fri,....where i am OFF on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday...

this is what i like to do and its worked for me...i'm suggesting some of you try it and/or critique to your specific needs...if you have any other questions or disagreements feel free to let me know I always love to be corrected...it only makes me better

tenxyearsxgone said:

my specific goal is strength

Click to expand...

Perhaps our misunderstanding here is how one defines 'strength.' To me, strength is the ability to lift weight once. There are correlations between how much a lifter can do once and how much a lifter can do 3-5 times. So when I say strength, I don't think in terms of what someone can do 3-4 times, because that does not correlate reversely to what someone can do once.

I'm curious also where the idea that hypertrophy requires less recovery time than strength came from. Are we speaking about recovery of the body or recovery of the CNS? Strength is almost exclusively about the CNS, in which case a 60 second rest or a 5 minute rest means next to nothing, since CNS recovery is dependant on the amount of fat the CNS is able to burn. If there is ample fuel, recovery is going to happen very quickly. If there is not ample fuel, recovery will be very delayed and no amount of rest will help since your body will have no fuel for the CNS. (which leads to brain fog if you go unfueled long enough for the CNS to use ketones for fuel)

I think the routine looks good. My personal preference is to train for both strength and hypertrophy at the same time. This is accomplished by doing strength(CNS) training first, followed by work that creates time and tension, thus lending itself to hypertrophy.

In effect, your routine is not too far off from mine, though it's structured entirely different and does not define strength the same way I do.

Looks pretty good, but how many sets are you doing for each exercise?

Saturday Fever, I'm curious to see your routine, do you have it posted online?

Alaric, I didn't, but I'll post it here in quotes right now for everyone to take a peek at.

Saturday Fever said:

My Routine

Squat Day
Warmup Lift: Speed Work, Deadlift Variation, Good AM Variation (to a 5RM)
ME Lift: Squat Variation (to a 1RM)
Accessory Lift: GHR, Reverse Hyper, etc (sets and reps vary)
Accessory Lift: see above

Bench Assistance Day
Triceps: varying lift, reps and sets (just play by ear)
Triceps or Shoulders: see above
Shoulders: see above
Shoulders or Back: see above
Back: see above

Deadlift Day
Warmup Lift: Speed Work, Squat Variation, Good AM Variation (to a 5RM)
ME Lift: Deadlift Variation (to a 1RM)
Accessory Lift: GHR, Reverse Hyper, etc (sets and reps vary)
Accessory Lift: see above

ME Bench Day
Bench (or variation): start with full ROM, hit 1RM, add boards, repeat
Rack Lockouts: finish off the 1RM work from above
Back: varying reps and sets

Click to expand...

That's basically it, in a nutshell.

Saturday I'm not sure where you were going with that, but thanks for the critique. Personally i dont do 1 rep maxes and i mean strength as far as upping the weight i do for those low 2-4 rep ranges. Concerning rest i've read articles from journals concerning rest, atp and hypertrophy and that the shorter rest times correlates into hypertrophy...i'm not sure of the reasoning but it made sense to me and im not sure if they meant sarcoplasmic or myofibillar. I'm looking for both types of hypertrophy...

Do 3 sets for each exercise. You can also attached a 2 set rule for the latter movements in your workout???for example



Bench 3x10

Inc. DB 3x10

Flyes 2x10 *you can do 3x10 if you feel you need the extra set* don???t forget everyone is different so experiment and tailor to your needs

Basically, I question routines because I want to know "why." Why is this done? Why is this effective? Why do you say this? Etc, etc.

I question the rest periods because I do a strength routine exclusively and my rest intervals are almost nonexistent. I rest long enough to gulp water and get back to the bar. When I have a workout partner, it's even shorter.

Now for rest times with regards to hypertrophy, and more specifically you mentioned ATP, it should be noted that ATP can be restored through the oxidation of fats and carbohydrates. So as long as your body is fueled, no amount of rest is better or worse for ATP resotration.

Hypertrophy itself is simply a trade-off between time and tension, but more importantly, your caloric intake. You can rest all you want, and use whatever scheme you want. Without proper dieting, you're not going to grow. So that said, as long as you're eating correctly, and properly asserting tension to your muscles for an adequate amount of time, hypertrophy will occur. Rest times are almost inconsequential. I will agree that you have to rest, but I disagree with any amount of rest being any better or any worse for the purpose of hypertrophy.

tenxyearsxgone said:

Saturday I'm not sure where you were going with that, but thanks for the critique.

Click to expand...

Where I'm going is simple. I'm not here to get paid for advice or to take people to the bank. I'm here for the simple goal that we all get better. And if that happens through the exchange of ideas, more power to us. So when I critique, I'm just trying to give you another insight. And in return, your responses can give me another point of view. And in the end we all become these big hulking, powerful beasts.


Well, we all walk away with some extra knowledge anyways.

With all due respect to the author of that document, I am going to side with a PhD over a BS any day of the week.

Years ago, when Russia cornered the market on strength training, their scientists studied thousands and thousands of subjects. Years later when the Soviet Union fell, these scientists were exposed to similar Western thinkers. The gentlemen all put their collective studies together and amazingly, around the world, external conditions being considered, the results were almost identical. People like Verkoshansky and Siff were given the opportunity to compare not only their notebooks, but also the discrepancies between how Westerners learned physiology and how Russian scientists learned physiology. Those differences were astounding.

All said and done, these people concluded through years of hands-on and lab study that strength was attained through CNS stimulation and overcoming CNS adaptation. This could be done with no rest period, were the body properly fueled and muscles didn't have to be taken into account. The CNS can refuel itself ridiculously fast.

I will not speak to hypertrophy because hypertrophy is a function of diet more than training.

I'm curious to know why you think hypertrophy is only a matter of nutrition not training. Considering different muscle fibers and their specific abilities to hypertrophy (sarcoplasmic, myofibillar) different rep ranges target specific muscle fibers... so im not sure what you mean...

I say it's a matter of nutrition for the following reason:

A man is 6 feet tall and weighs 200 pounds. He eats 2500 calories everyday. No more, no less.

This man will not gain muscle no matter what routine or rest period he uses. He simply will not have the caloric intake necessary.

Likewise, how do different rep ranges target specific muscle fibers? Which muscle fibers are we speaking of? I would appreciate if you had a good study you could link, however, with regards to sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy. Specifically to how one style of training would increase one and not the other.

http://anton.leathercollection.ph/hypertrophy_hyperplasia.pdf

http://www.strengthcats.com/JDallmusclesnotequal.htm

http://www.avantlabs.com/page.php?pageID=198&issueID=17

This is going to become a semantics battle, and I'd rather it didn't, so briefly...

This quote:

Myofibrillar hypertrophy, on the other hand, is an enlargement of the muscle fiber as it gains more myofibrils, which contract and generate tension in the muscle. With this type of hypertrophy, the area density of myofibrils increases and there is a significantly greater ability to exert muscular strength (2).

Click to expand...

made by:

Siff, Mel C. and Yuri V. Verkhoshansky. Supertraining. Colorado: Denver, 1999.

Click to expand...

Is the only quote made by an authro who I will grant any respect to. The other authros cited (Poliquin and Tsatsouline) have been proven wrong time and again in numerous publications, forums and mailing lists by the late Drs. Siff and Verkoshansky. And to revisit the statement they made on Myofibrillar Hypertrophy, what they said was, simply, that myofibrillar hypertrophy is an enlargement of the muscle fiber. They did NOT continue to say that it was best achieved with any type of rep range or rest period. They DID, however, go on in the text of Supertraining (Supertraining being by Siff but noting works of Verkoshansky and others) to explain techniques, within the realm of physiology and kinesiology, to attain strength gains and hypertrophy gains. None of which made specific mention of which was better for myofibrillar or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Why?

Because there is no evidence, through science, that proves one can be attained via specific methods while other methods will produce the alternate effect. Dr. Siff and Charles Poliquin debated this a LOT. In the end, it always ended with Siff providing proven scientifically backed evidence, and Poliquin losing his temper and resorting to name-calling. Many of these such conversations can be found on the Supertraining mailing list.

I have been accused on this forum of being biased towards Dr. Siff and close-minded towards Charles Poliquin. If I am biased, it is because everything that is, is because of science or can be proven by science. Everything from how air makes us live to why the Earth rotates around the Sun. Dr. Siff always backed his claims with science, whereas many (and most) others always back their claims with pseudo-science or the excuse "well, I've seen it happen." And as I've argued on this forum many times, as well, what you see and what is actually happening do not have to be the same thing. Appearances can be deceiving, science cannot.

I would invite you to venture to www.elitefts.com and buy the latest edition of Supertraining. Not because I am trying to say "you're wrong, I'm right" but because it will give you a very solid, science backed view into the world of sports training. (Sports encompassing weightlifting, etc.)