sounds very interesting, thanks
I ran across an across an article on T-Nation titled "Can't Prove It".
The article asks serveral coaches/trainers something about weight training that they believe to be true, but for which there is no real scientific proof. It's a pretty interesting read.
I like the part about cardio workouts, but I'm not so hot with the last piece on squats.
sounds very interesting, thanks
That was fun.
Yeah not keen on the last part although I have thought that myself.
Yep, sometimes educated speculation can be fun.
That is interesting about the squats and deadlifts.
If you've read 'Dinosaur Training' by Brooks Kubik, he speculates how building muscle very slowly and over a long period of time will help strengthen the connective tissues far better than going for the gold as soon as possible. In other words, add weight very slowly and everything will keep up; add it too quickly and your muscles will outgrow the connective tissues. I wonder whether it's true.
the best part about t-bag is not the article itself, but the morons that post after it.
Did they ask stupid shit like, "How many carbs"?
yeah I enjoyed that one, what are your guys thoughts on the cardio theory?
I think I've reached a plateau on mt fat loss with slow and steady cardio which usually lasts between 35-45 minutes a time, I got really good results at the start but not so much now.
Was gonna mix things up starting next week and try and incorporate more HIIT and changing my weights routine from a body part split to upper/lower.
Any feedback will really appreciated.
Is this true? The reason i ask is because my legs seem to grow a little slower in comparison to my upper body. Should i work my legs a lot more frequently just so the CNS will be efficient at recruiting HT motor-units within that muscle or just continue doing what i do?Take myself for example; I trained 8 years to improve football performance and then 4 years for Olympic lifting. During those 12 years my training was heavily "lower half dominant" because I figured that I needed a lot more leg than upper body strength.
In fact, during my first two years of training I only trained legs (and I trained them 4-5 times per week)! Okay, fast-forward to the present time: I can actually train legs only once every 2 weeks with a few sets of squats and they will grow.
I can gain more leg size with 5 total sets of squats per week than most can with a myriad of exercises and more complex training techniques. However, my chest grows very slowly (as an Olympic lifter, training chest was a big no-no) and requires more frequent and more intense stimulation. Why is that? A lot of it has to do with the fact that my nervous system is "good" at recruiting the HT motor-units in my legs because it had a lot of practice at that.
Another example is Sébastien Cossette (known as Da Freak) who is well known for his huge traps. Yet, we hardly ever used any trap exercises with him. Otherwise they'd grow too big in comparison to other body parts.
Sébastien's father used to own a convenience store. Sébastien worked there and spent his days carrying boxes and that put a tremendous amount of stress on the traps. He did this for years and as a result his traps became insanely easy-responders. However, when he was young he didn't really train his legs intensely (like most kids his age) and as a result they grow slower than his back, biceps, and shoulders.
The bottom line is that the more efficient your CNS is at recruiting HT motor-units within a muscle, the better that muscle responds to training.
I also don't understand this because people always say that you grow outside of the gym, not in. So, i would need to rest, eat and sleep well. If that's the case, then why did he train legs 4-5 times per week?
That section baffled me as well. Kind of goes against what you hear most of the time here. cuz you know someone will say they have an "arm day" cuz of the fact that they believe their arms dont grow.
What I don't quite understand is how someone can train something biweekly and still see gains. I mean, people train to failure weekly sometimes, so what do they train to when their frequency is biweekly?
"The problem, in my opinion, is with the nervous system and not with the actual muscle tissue. Muscle tissue is muscle tissue and the adaptive process is the same regardless of what muscle we are talking about. Sure, some muscles probably have more growth potential than others, but we should be able to stimulate proportional growth to all of our muscle groups. Yet this rarely happens. Why?
The problem is neural: stubborn muscles have a higher activation threshold, meaning the nervous system isn't efficient at recruiting the HT motor-units within that muscle group.
In most cases this is due to a lack of "recruitment skills" (for a lack of better words): your CNS is not used to activating the HT motor-units in that muscle group. This is why a stubborn muscle group should be trained more often and with more targeted (as opposed to only compound movements) training.
Frequent targeted practice will increase your capacity to recruit the HT motor-units within that stubborn muscle group: you become better at it. And as you become better at recruiting the HT motor-units in a muscle group, you will "transform" this muscle into an easy-responder."