Thread: Split Routine Question?

huh?

Sully,

Welcome to the board!

I am older than you and I am a triathlete so I understand where you are coming from.

My big weeks are 65 Kilometers miles running, 500 miles biking and 14,000 meters swimming.

I am over 205lbs with 34" waist so I know about trying to maintain size and strength while doing a lot of endurance training.

I DEFNITELY think you are over training with the weights.

For me what I have found works the best is 1 workout set of Bench, Close grip press, Bent over BB rows, BB curls per week. Each set is 10 reps fast contraction VERY slow on the negative.

I do 1 warmup set per excercise. 20 mins a week and I am done.

I also did 8 week pulse of Epistane and it DEFINITELY helped a lot. I will be doing 4 weeks of Havoc/Methyl E shortly.

I would also suggest using BCAAs you can get brand name of you can get bulk powder and flavor it yourself. I hope you are doing protein as well

Maybe you just are not getting in enough calories. Maybe you are trying to eat too clean.

Good luck on the upcoming season!


CROWLER

I'd agree that you are overtraining. One set of an exercise, if performed properly, is all you need to stimulate growth:

bodybuilding: how many sets? (new evidence)

try reducing the volume (no. of sets) whilst increasing intensity.

What worked best for me was a 3 day a week (non-consecutive days) whole body routine consisting of 20 exercises, for one set each (8-12 reps) in strict form to momentary muscular failure. Try to concentrate on compound exercises (squat,dips,chins,bench,rows etc) for the majority of the exercises, and less on isolation exercises (pec deck, lateral raises etc). (if youre going to failure get a spotter for the squat/bench etc!). Basically keep it hard, brief and infrequent. Perform a general overall body warm-up first (lunges, press-ups, trunk twists etc) and a light warm up set on the heavy compound exercises before your 1 all-out-to-failure.

I'm on the verge of returning to training after several years off - but the above routine gave me impressive gains.

Happy Training

Protheus and Crowler, thanks for the advice. I will modify my workout.

Crowler, thanks for the tip on the Epistane, but the stuff probably doesn't go over too well with USADA. I will stick with the protein.

Sully

Hi Sully

The attached article may be of interest to you:

What Is SuperSlow?

This covers much of what I was trying to say originally ie. you do not need to perform a high-volume routine (multiple sets, split routines etc) in order to stimulate maximal growth in a muscle (the super-slow protocol suggested above is mainly to prevent injury).

What is most important is the intensity with which you perform your set. I used a 2-3 second lift and a 4-5 second lowering, with a weight that allowed for 8-12 reps in strict form. Even when I hit momentary failure I would continue to exert maximal effort to try and move the weight for around 6-10 secs. When I could do 12 reps in good form I would increase the weight by around 5% next session and shoot again for 8 reps. My entire body was worked as a unit 3 times a week, using a total of around 20 sets or less!! - FOR THE ENTIRE BODY!

Much of what is discussed in the above article (and the one I posted up re:the sets controversy) goes back to concepts originally touted by Arthur Jones (of nautilus fame) and later proven as fact.

So why, you may ask, do people still perform high-volume/high set/split routines etc. ? -the reason is simple - tradition and conventional wisdom are difficult queens to unthrone and in many minds more=better. If it works for the champs (steroids aside) it must work for me!

Do some research and then decide for yourself. I did - and I'm glad I did because it saved me alot of time and gave me great results.

I must add that training to failure like this is extremely uncomfortable (to say the least!) and takes an effort of will. You must be determined to do your all-out on each set, because you are only doing one set of that particular exercise.

BTW I am not saying that high-volume routines do not work - they obviously do - but for the majority of 'average' people ie not genetically gifted they can be counter productive and lead to over-training.

I am also not saying that all volume trainers do not work in a high intensity fashion - quite often they do, but any exercise in excess of the minimum required is a waste of effort at best and counter-productive at worst.

Flame suit on !!

Some lifters do better using multiple sets but NOT taken to failure (more tonnage), HIT is not optimal for everyone

Originally Posted by britlifter

Some lifters do better using multiple sets but NOT taken to failure (more tonnage), HIT is not optimal for everyone

I find your reply quite intriguing and I am genuinely interested - do you have any links (or refs) to studies that support this statement or is it merely anecdotal ?

Originally Posted by Protheus

I find your reply quite intriguing and I am genuinely interested - do you have any links (or refs) to studies that support this statement or is it merely anecdotal ?

Training to failure

http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/do...ple%20Sets.pdf

Those links make for very interesting reading - thanks for taking the time to post them

I have often wondered why - after 18 months or so of HIT training my strength seemed to reach a plateau that I could not break through. At the time I assumed that I had reached my maximum potential - but I see this may not have been the case (this is encouraging!).

I can fully sympathise with what Kevin is saying in the first article regarding the mind-set of the HIT advocate. Once I have worked myself back to readiness I may give serious thought to cycling intensity with some volume work and see if I can't break through those old barriers!

Whereabouts in the UK ru ?

After doing some further research it appears that the 'meta-analysis' (link above to nsca-lift.org) suggesting 4 sets as the optimum is deeply flawed and has received considerable criticism:

eg from one critique:

The authors of two recent meta-analyses (52,53) claim that their findings support the superiority of multiple sets. Both meta-analyses claim to include all relevant published studies. In the 2002 paper (52), the authors analyse 16 studies that have examined the effects of weight training programmes comprising one and three sets per exercise respectively. The 2003 paper (53) compares the results of 140 studies that have examined the effects of strength training interventions, in an attempt to determine how many sets per muscle group are best. The two meta-analyses in question compare many studies loaded with potentially confounding variables. These include varying numbers of repetitions, different exercises and training modalities, different training intensities (i.e. some studies specify training to muscular failure and others don’t), different strength measures, different subject populations (healthy and diseased, sedentary and athletic, young and old), and different dietary constraints. The idea that one can meaningfully compare studies with so many differences is clearly questionable. It is also important to point out that the great majority of the studies in the 2003 meta-analysis were not designed to compare the effects of single and multiple-set weight training: they were actually designed to examine such widely differing topics as the effects of various nutritional supplements, the effects of weight training in different age groups, changes in cardiovascular function as a response to weight training, specificity of training, effect of weight training on bone mineral density, balance, walking speed and many other variables. We contend that comparing such a hodgepodge of studies will simply not provide meaningful results: the idea that the differences between the studies will somehow magically even themselves out to produce a balanced comparison of different training volumes appears very naive. Indeed, researchers have previously criticised this sort of abuse of meta-analysis (‘comparing apples and oranges’; 54,55).

The confounding variables mentioned above make these meta-analyses a questionable exercise at best, even if the studies included were well-designed and controlled, and represented all such published studies. However, neither of these conditions is met. Firstly, the paper includes the Berger (37), Kraemer (44), Kraemer et al. (45) and Kramer et al. (46) studies, the numerous shortcomings of which have been discussed above.

Of even greater concern is the fact that many studies are missing from the analyses of Rhea and colleagues. In the 2002 study, supposedly all English-language studies, including abstracts, published by 2000 and comparing one versus three sets/exercise programs were included. However, this is not the case. At least six studies published prior to 2000 that examined this topic are not included in their meta-analysis. Interestingly, none of these studies found any advantage in performing multiple sets. It is a remarkable coincidence that all these studies ignored by Rhea et al. do not support their conclusions. For example, the Vincent et al. study noted previously is missing from the analysis, as are studies by Terbizan and Bartels (56), Stowers et al. (57), Westcott et al. (58), Welsch et al. (59) and Stadler et al. (60).

Given that only 16 studies were included in the analysis, it is likely that the inclusion of these six studies would have had a major impact on the findings. A similar phenomenon has occurred in their 2003 analysis. That is, a number of studies showing very large strength increases from single-set training are absent. These include the six studies noted above, but also a number of others that again are likely to have impacted upon the results of the meta-analysis. These include the studies by Pollock et al. (31,32), Tucci et al. (33), Graves et al. (61) and Carpenter et al. (62) mentioned elsewhere in this paper, and other studies by Risch et al. (63), Highland et al. (64), Peterson (65), Holmes et al. (66), Ryan et al. (67), Koffler et al. (68), Rubin et al. (69), Capen (70) and Westcott (71). It appears very suspicious that all these studies that have not been included in the meta-analysis have found single-set training to be very effective. It is also remarkable that three studies that were included in the 2002 analysis (72-74) are absent from the 2003 one. In total, therefore, 23 studies, all of which found single-set training to be very effective, are missing from the 2003 analysis. We do not wish to speculate on the possible reasons for these omissions, but simply note that such omissions, in conjunction with the methodological problems noted above, render the authors’ conclusions invalid.

Another important point regarding the 2003 analysis is that the study compared single versus multiple sets per muscle group, not per exercise. It is important to note that those advocating one set per exercise, including Jones, do not usually hypothesise that one set for every muscle group would lead to optimal muscle gains. Also, in a well-balanced training program it would be almost impossible to only perform one set/muscle group, as many exercises work more than one muscle. Therefore, these researchers have constructed a ‘straw man’ (one set/muscle group) to knock down, presumably knowing that most single-set trainees, although performing one set/exercise, perform more than one set/muscle.

Overall, it is clear that the great majority of well-controlled, peer-reviewed studies support Jones’ (15,16,18-20) contention that one set per exercise is all that is necessary to stimulate optimal increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy. Though there are exceptions in the research literature, these are few and most suffer from confounding variables and, in some cases, blatant experimenter bias.

Fact is I could link you to other studies to show that multiple sets are better than 1, then you'd find more sudies to suggest the oppostie. What really matters is REAL life experiances.

BOTH work, however to say that ANY one way is best or optimal for everyone is foolish.

Iron Addicts Forums - View Single Post - Request for links about failure/sets

I'm not looking for an argument.

I've already said that volume training does work and that I would be giving more volume a try.

I was merely pointing out that that particular papers findings should be taken with a pinch of salt.

You seem to be trying to put words into my mouth.