Volume versus intensity

sesna

d'Oracle wrote: »

You ask some really broad questions.

Well not really. Just looking for some practical advice instead of long convoluted answers and bickering back and forth. Ive only been training properly about a year and a half, but I do about three different workouts every week, and change it completely every 3 weeks or so. That's probably far too general, ignorant and doesnt conform to the vagueness of this thread :pac:

d'Oracle

sesna wrote: »

Well not really. Just looking for some practical advice instead of long convoluted answers and bickering back and forth. Ive only been training properly about a year and a half, but I do about three workouts every week, and change it completely every 3 weeks or so. That's probably far too general, ignorant and doesnt conform to the vagueness of this thread :rolleyes:

I'm gonna be honest with you.

"How long do you think does it take for an adaption to occur?"
That's as vague and general as it gets.

I mean what adoption are you looking for?
What's the stimulus?

Hanley

Will Heffernan wrote: »

brianthebard has been busy thanking everyone who he felt disagreed with me at all and I haven't seen anyone take a shot at him. Seems to be only any time that anyone thanks me here that people get accused of being a 'fanboy'? Why is that now. I just think that is so stupid and speaks volumes about this forum. It doesn't actually worry me. Like I said I think it is pretty funny how some posters here get a 'free ride' and get tonnes of thanks...no one says a word. It is actually a little sad. I actually make myself available to argue the points and get no credit for it. That and the fact that one person 'thanks' me or agrees and they're a 'fanboy'.

No, poor bank just likes when people talk all science-y

They did nothing else? Sounds like a great experiment. We'll take a control group who do nothing and take a variety of other groups doing other programs and see what the results are.

If they did nothing else then any results they did or didn't get are all totally down to 20 reps squats.

obviously I didn't mean LITERALLY nothing else... I'm not gonna waste my time qualifying my posts to such an extent that no holes can be picked in it. Can you not just respond to the spirit of the post?

I woulda thought it was pretty clear that I meant if they majority of their lower body training was 20 rep squats and their squat increased, did it make them stronger?

Have you ever missed a rep at a weight then got it on the next attempt? What was it that happened in between attempts? If we take “getting stronger” as purely moving more weight for a single rep, what’s happened between reps if it’s not a strength increase?

Course I have... I believe it's an increase in bollock size in that instance

Typically tho it's down to form or being a p*ssy. If I miss a weight with solid form and put everything I have into it, nothing I do in the 10 minutes between my next attempt will make me stronger.

My point being that simply saying 20 reps squats increased my max strength is ridiculous in it's generality.

If I did 20 rep squats for 6 weeks, and hit a PR off them, you can be damn sure that's what I'd be saying. I wouldn't be saying it was the lateral raises, or leg curls or whatever. Occam's Razor my friend - I squatted more, and my squat went up. What's likely to be the primary driver?

Be all means give it a crack...continue doing that every 6 weeks on an ongoing basis and get back to me

Who said anything about doing nothing but 20 rep squats?

What if you do it for 6 weeks and nothing happens? What if it goes down 5kg?

Then I got weaker... probably due to overtraining/reaching and fatigue due to all the reps and volume. But who's to say 20 rep squats did that to me. Maybe it was the leg curls, or the lateral raises, or my penchant for coke zero.

EDIT: I've hidden numerous spelling and grammatical errors in there for you to have some fun with...

Banks

Hanley wrote: »

No, poor bank just likes when people talk all science-y

Agreed, and don't like when people link certain types of training with certain outcomes? (not aimed at any1 so no bitchin)

Sangre

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Is it really? I see tonnes factually incorrect posts slide on by here without ever being questioned.

Everyone else gets to just present their opinion...I'm supposed to present a thesis.

They statement was made:

'I got some of my best 'strength' gains from 20rep squats.'

Not a single poster says bo peep? No questions. No queries. Nothing. Some people get to say whatever they like...I say anything and I'm supposed to write a paper on the subject.

I disagree with someone and I'm supposed to provide all the evidence disproving statements as well as supporting mine? No one here seems to see any problem with that?

I was simply making the point that...that 'strength' was a term that needed definition.

Like I said, you don't have to do anything. You're under no obligation to post anything. I was only suggesting what, to me, is one of the reasons your threads can get unnecessarily derailed despite your best efforts. The following comes across as very preachy but its not intended that way.

Transform posted something in good faith, based on his own knowledge and experience. People's experiences, if you believe them, do not usually need to backed up. Nobody said anything because nobody disagreed with him or knew enough to disagree. The same applies to Brian's statement.

If you have disagreed with them based on your experiences you could have left it at that but you said that Brian (and transform) were incorrect in their observations. It would have started the thread off better if you had briefly said why.

In general I find a good rule of thumb is as follows:
If someone posts their experience, it can be taken at face value and be presumed that they are not lying. If your experiences differ you can say so and omit reasons. If they are factually wrong in what they've posted or observed you can say so and it helps to state reasons why.

However, if someone states something as fact or makes an assertion they should back it up in their opening post (although they don't always).

As a poster in another thread coincidentally said today in relation to your post.

Most of all I would like to see your similar or opposite point of view instead of simply stating that somebody else is either right or wrong. Not because I'd like to get in any arguments but to be able to share the broad knowledge if indeed you have something interesting to share, I will be the most interested to read and contemplate on it.

For example, in this thread on this forum, which covered an area of my professional knowledge, I tried to post reasons why some posters were wrong. Rather then simply saying they were wrong (which I knew they were):

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056073622

Of course feel free to do whatever you want but I find someone of your posts, while always well meaning and honest, can be a bit brief or cryptic to discover what you are trying to say.

Also remember, not everyone knows your background, so they like to see reasons if they are told they're wrong.

gymfreak

I read the title of the thread yesterday and thought 'ooh that'l be an interesting read'. Have to say I am fairly disappointed with the outcome of the thread. I like being exposed to new information, learning new things and getting good advice. I read a lot of the topics on the forum but I don't post at all as I feel/ know that I am at a stage where I am just absorbing (trying to) information so that I can make sense of my training.

I do feel that the tone of this thread has been lowered so much so that a poster would have to clause himself from backbiting.

Banks wrote: »

(not aimed at any1 so no bitchin)

If someone disagrees with me on anything (not specific to training) I will generally ask a ridiculous amount of questions so that I can see where their thinking is coming from and ascertain whether it has any merit. To be honest I didn't see a lot of this in the thread. This forum is supposed to be about discussion..and I don't think that has been happening around here lately.

I really would prefer, for the benefit of both lurkers and posters alike that the forum returned to asking questions, responses, debate, discussion instead of people 'controlling' a thread. The thread had over a 2,000 hits and had great potentional, it's just a pity that instead of a good debate it descended into this....just my opinion.

sesna

d'Oracle wrote: »

I'm gonna be honest with you.

"How long do you think does it take for an adaption to occur?"
That's as vague and general as it gets.

I mean what adoption are you looking for?
What's the stimulus?

Not looking for an adaption to occur. And my understanding of adaption is when you reach a plateau in terms of growing muscle, with what you can lift as a maximum or what your work capacity is.

Short of posting up individual training programmes, it is of course going to be general and vague question.

d'Oracle

sesna wrote: »

Not looking for an adaption to occur. And my understanding of adaption is when you reach a plateau in terms of growing muscle, with what you can lift as a maximum or what your work capacity is.

Short of posting up individual training programmes, it is of course going to be general and vague question.

OK.

I would have understood training adaption to mean how your body adapts to training stimulus. e.g. I lift heavy weights, my muscles adapt to the stimulus of overloading them by becoming better at exerting force (get stronger) or I do some cardio training and my body becomes better at exchanging oxygen for CO2 (or whatever it is cardio does).

Its this SAID principle that people talk about. Specific Adaption to Imposed Demand.

sesna wrote: »

Short of posting up individual training programmes, it is of course going to be general and vague question.

But how can you really learn anything which you can apply if you are being so broad though?

Like are you trying to get strong, get big, get big and strong?
Get leaner? Improve you conditioning?
These are different things are trained differently and are obviously will have different factors to consider.

This is what I mean by too general/broad.
You aren't really giving yourself a chance of getting a useful answer is what I'm trying to say.

Will Heffernan

I don't think people even read my posts. They 'read' it how they want to read it. I'm not even going to bother responding to these posts. I could take any one of the recent ones and spend all my time pointing out all the inaccuracies simply regarding what I am 'supposed' to of said. People don't even bother posting what I actually said...they post their interpretation of what I said. That is cool. You guys are all correct. High rep sets result in maximal strength increases. That's perfect. You guys can work away with that for a few cycles and see where that gets your maximal strength numbers. If it is such a great way of gaining maximal strength and that so many people have experienced their best strength gains with 20 rep squats then why stop with squats....do it with everything.

I tried my best to have a proper discussion...but like Hanley says...very few people here like it when people talk all science-y and brianthebard...doesn't care about any of that 'neural adaptation' crap...on and on I can go.

I leave you all you guys in peace. I'll get back to working and keep my opinion to myself. I'm not butt hurt...I'm not crying off...but if I'm supposed to have this discussion without getting science-y and I'm supposed to avoid anything that'll fry brianthebard neural synapses this is pointless and that's unfortunate.

I'm sitting here looking at this post:
I have no interest in discussing neural adaptation or any of that stuff as I said earlier. What I am interested in now is you answering my original question regarding what exactly caused my max squat to increase if it wasn't my squat training?

I can't believe people here don't realise how sad that is that apparently that's the level we're at.

the drifter

i dont even know where to start.I dont think there is even a point.

Thread closed.