bodybuilders v gymnasts

[Edward Kaspar]

Joshua, a few questions regarding your last post, mainly to do with your point 3). Firstly, a quick disclaimer: although I have been training in both weightlifting and more recently gymnast training for a few years now, I am only 21 still and my knowledge on both these subjects still leaves a lot to be desired, and is a long way away from that of yourself and many others on this board, so any questions asked are out of a genuine desire to be educated as opposed to arguing for arguments sake/playing devils advocate. Just thought I'd clear that up as the intended tone of a question often gets lost over the Internet :?

Ok onto the questions. You say that loading does not matter as long as failure is reached with each set (I understand this is within the context of 2 light days a week, 2 heavy days, with the sets to failure occuring on the light days only. I think I remember reading that from another of your more recent posts, please correct me if I am wrong/have got the wrong end of the stick).

This seems to contradict some previous posts of yours (from a few years back admittedly, I think from the Martin Berkhan thread) where you state that multiple sets of low reps with a heavy weight (say, 3 reps of a 6rm per set, even up to 40+ sets) are a superior method for hypertrophy (assuming diet is correct), and also excellent for strength gains. That was paraphrasing from memory so I apologise if I have misquoted you.

This is in keeping with much of the research and readings I have done towards this subject, most notably from the work of Pavel Tsatsouline (who recommends never going to failure) and Dan John - Multiple sets, low reps heavy weight (between 65-85% or thereabouts I believe), always leaving a rep or two in the bank with each set, and never going to failure. I believe the theory behind this is to maximise the total volume by minimising fatigue as much as possible, whilst putting up a respectable weight still. Examples of this type of training I can think of off the top of my head are Pavel's 'the bear'' routine, ladders, 5x5, Delorme etc etc. This is assuming a desire for hypertrophy as well as strength gains, I believe Pavel and Dan Johns, as well as MMA coach Steve Baccari and many others advocate increasing the training frequency and reducing the daily volume for strength gains only with minimal mass increase (which I imagine would be beneficial to professional gymnasts but not necessairily people on here who wish to get stronger and bigger by using gymnastic training), e.g keeping the reps per lift to 10 a day, 5-6 times a week, such as the program described in PTTP, to train the CNS to become more efficient as opposed to adding more muscle mass.

I personally find that if I work a lift to failure, I am unable to perform that lift to a high standard again for a few days at least due to the increased recovery time. I imagine for a gymnast who must train skills almost daily to see significant improvements, training which minimises fatigue and recovery times, and therefore allows for increased training frequency, would be prefferred over training to failure.

My question is, Do you believe that the method you suggested in point 3) is beneficial over the method of increasing size and strength simultaneously through multiple sets of low reps with a heavy (70-80%% 1rm) never to failure? If so I would be interested to hear why if you don't mind sharing (I understand if you do not wish to divulge this information, this is a free public forum after all).

Again I must add that this is purely for my own education and self improvement! I have followed much of your advice in the past to great success, so when you suggest a method of training, I am obviously interested in hearing it out! The reason I question this one however is that it goes against my current understandings, and therefore current training methodologies that I have been having success with. For example, I have been following Pavel and Dan John's methods of never (or very rarely) training to failure, and have worked up to a 1/2 body weight one armed C+P with a 32kg kettlebell, and a pullup with the 32kg bell attached to me (@ bw of ~65 kgs) not strong by any means but I am improving and this method has not failed me yet. Furthermore, not training to failure has enabled me to practice the press to some extent 5-6 days a week (as the saying goes: to press a lot, one must press a lot!), with a heavy, light, and medium day (MWF) and some technique+overhead support work on Tu/Th, handstand wall runs, Tgu's, higher rep light (30/40% 1rm) presses (but not to failure!) etc.

Of course, I understand there are many ways to skin a cat so I am in no way suggesting that certain methods aren't successful, I have just avoided training to failure for such a long time now that in my head it just seems like an inefficient way of training for strength. In my head, it makes more sense to cycle periods of strength specialisation for a few weeks, with more hypertrophy based periods of training with multiple sets of low reps, at around 70-80% 1rm. The hypertrophy cycle will take advantage of the strength gained from the strength specialisation cycle, and the strength specialisation cycle in turn will benefit from the extra mass gained from the hypertrophy cycle. This is just my own heavily oversimplified understanding, and I'm trying to understand how training at 30-40% 1rm to failure is more productive to strength than what I have outlined above. Is it something along the lines of (you'll have to excuse the terrible analogy, I apologise in advance) the method you suggest: building a house by gathering all the materials you need prior to beginning building (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy by traing to failure often) and then being able to put the house up in no time at all due to all the materials being already available (CNS adaptation to new muscle mass with strength specialisation period of 10-12 weeks), as opposed to what I outlined above: gathering a few materials, begin building foundations of house, gather a few more, carry on building etc etc (rotating strength specialisation with more hypertrophy based training: more sets, less training frequency, higher volume). Again, terrible analogy not to be taken too literally, but is the concept on the right track?

I guess the key statement I can't get my head aound is 'loading doesn't matter' :shock:

Sorry for the long winded post, it is highly likely that I have simply misunderstood the concept you've outlined, therefore rendering this whole post unnecessary, but hey. You don't ask, you don't get.

I originally wrote this as a PM but thought that it may invite interesting responses from members here so I've posted it here instead. If it is too off-topic then I'm sure the mods can move/delete it?

Thanks

[Nic Branson]

Kind of its own thread topic but this thread has gone this direction. As you directed it towards Josh will let him reply before I type anything here.

[Larry Roseman]

Kind of its own thread topic but this thread has gone this direction. As you directed it towards Josh will let him reply before I type anything here.

[He] originally wrote this as a PM but thought that it may invite interesting responses from members here so I've posted it here instead.

Feel free to respond Nic.

[Edward Kaspar]

Kind of its own thread topic but this thread has gone this direction. As you directed it towards Josh will let him reply before I type anything here.

Only just noticed you're an RKC Nic, I very much look forward to hearing your response.

Although my question was directed towards Joshua, it was posted in the forum to hopefully provoke an interesting discussion so anyone with any thoughts please feel free to respond.

@Joshua, in regards to the research on resistance exercise load on hypertrophy, are you referring to Mitchell et al (2012) and Burd et al (2010) primarily? These were the two main bits of research I could find in regard to what you describe, If there are more I would be interested in reading them.

[Falcon]

perform HeSPU, dips, chin/pull ups, PPP and foot-supported rows for more than 90-120 seconds with constant tension

So this was a kind of a joke right? I was feeling weaker than usually for a second or two 8)

[Larry Roseman]

You know the old saying ... the best way to work out is the way you aren't doing it.

Progressive increases in resistance and time under tension I thought were the key variables. Failure may be another one!

Sometimes I work to total failure but from the little I know about muscular development, isnt' absolutely required to gain

strength or mass. It may be the way to gain the most of both, or at least mass, but I personally don't know.

Because like you I don't push it that far typically - because I don't want to deal with weights

dropping on my chest or my head on the ground, or deal with a longer recovery.

However I will work to near failure reguarly.

That said, I'm not all that strong or built, but better than average I guess for my age group.

Would like to hear other's opinions on the topic as well.

[Joshua Naterman]

I'll have to look up the authors again. There are two studies in this area that I am aware of but one is an extension of a single bout trial that looked at the change in protein synthesis rate in the skeletal muscle over a 24 hour period in 90% of 1RM to failure vs 30% of 1RM to failure vs 30% of 1RM performed to equal the total work done with 90% of 1RM. The second study was by the same authors and was a 10 or 12 week study comparing 80% 1rm to failure for 1 set and 3 sets with 30% 1RM to failure for 3 sets only. 3 sets produced 2.4x the hypertrophy that 1 set produced, with 80% and 30% to failure for 3 sets producing not only nearly identical hypertrophy of the muscle but also identical hypertrophy of fiber types, both of which are important.

Going to failure with light loads and going to failure with heavy loads are kind of relying on different mechanisms to promote protein synthesis. You get less of a mechanical load stimulus with a 30% load than with a 80% load, but with a 30% load you can basically run through every single fast twitch motor group and push them to failure in sequence, which apparently leads to protein synthesis being elevated for over 24 hours straight. The 80% load causes a higher peak rate of protein synthesis but also returns to normal after around 6-8 hours.

The high intensity mechano-receptor stimulation seems to be a bit shorter lived but results in a higher peak rate of transcription. The mechanisms are not really delved into, but it seems that something is different about the 30% effort. Blatantly apparent possibilities are that since so much more tissue is directly loaded to failure, there is simply much more tissue trying to synthesize proteins and it takes longer to return to normal. This doesn't stand up to basic logic though, which would say that the former statement should cause a higher peak as opposed to a longer duration of a more moderate rate. As there are more independent stimuli for transcription up-regulation than I know about, it is fair to say that there is probably something different going on due to the metabolic fatigue achieved in a very large proportion of the muscle. There's still mechanoreceptor stimulation, but not quite as high, and this may be the reason for the lower peak. It seems to me that the metabolic fatigue is responsible for a more prolonged stimulation of skeletal muscle protein synthesis, but not at anywhere near the peak rate that you see with the intensely stimulated mechanoreceptors.

Nic is going to know a lot more about the details of this and may have insights that I simply cannot provide due to my currently limited knowledge of the various pathways through which skeletal muscle protein synthesis is upregulated.

It should be apparent that this means that the way you train will alter your anabolic window in terms of how long you should really be trying to get food down in an organized manner. With the lighter training, there is an enormous anabolic window and the POTENTIAL for excellent gains. Because food intake is so integral to increasing the rate of protein synthesis, it should be obvious that you want at least 6 hours PWO to be able to provide high quality nutrition after an 80% 1RM level of work and for as close to 24 hours as you can get if you're working out much lighter, like with 30-40%.

For this reason, I think it is a very good idea to get the lighter work to failure done as early in the day as possible, so that you can provide the food your body needs to grow all day long so that you can take advantage of the increased length of the anabolic window.

[Nic Branson]

Not bad at all. The anabolic window is especially important there. If your nutrition is not good and you do not rest properly, you have no business training to failure on a regular basis.

Break some things down a bit here. The higher the load (intensity, resistance or whatever you want to call it) the greater the protein degradation per rep and the greater the amount of fiber recruitment per rep. This also leads to a faster fatigue rate, both neural and from the local energy system. This does lead to increase rate of firing and better attenuation in the form of neural learning. It teaches you how to use a large amount of fibers all at once in a coordinated manner to complete the movement. While the higher threshold fibers will take up to 48hours (72 on the extreme side) to recover the lower ones will not need much recovery so your total protein synthesis is low. Your endocrine response is also fairly low.

The lower load with increased reps causes a slower rate of protein degradation but has the capacity to cause more total degradation than the above. As fatigue sets in more and more fibers are needed and you start to reach the thresh hold of the higher ones near the end. This allows for fatigue of all the fibers and leads to quite a pronounced endocrine response by the body to heal the amount of damage done. Due to the level of degradation recovery time is increased and requires better nutrition. Time is also of a concern between sets, to ensure maximum possible recruitment and fatiguing of all applicable fibers.

Looking at the above you start to see why periodization comes to the forefront of many discussions. The old timers used to not worry about it too much, some adding a single "back-off" set at the end of their strength work to fatigue everything and increase blood flow. If you look at Doug Hepburn, he stuck with low rep sets 3-5 reps typically but he would do 20 sets. The thing to keep in mind with some of their training was that many of the men we know about also performed and they needed to save energy for performing.

My personal preference is for lower reps and more sets. Certain movements will not fit into this scheme and higher reps would be performed, many single joint movements, prefab/rehab. Individual goals and preferences also should be kept in mind. Every now and then I will always mix in a higher rep set just for variety if nothing else.

[Kyle Courville]

I really enjoyed that post Nic. Can you think of any good sources to find this type of information?

[Joshua Naterman]

Nic:

Protein degradation, apart from normal turnover, seems to occur mostly at the z-discs and seems to have a direct relationship with the % of 1RM in terms of total damage, though I know that at some point free radical damage piles up and causes much more damage like during ultra-marathons and the like.

At 30% of 1RM to failure, for 3 sets, I don't think we are doing substantially more damage than 3 sets to failure with 80%, as the higher threshold fibers are much less resistant to z-disc disruptions and said disruptions seem to be primarily caused by either extremely long periods of repetitive high velocity eccentric contractions (downhill running on a treadmill) or extremely high force repetitive maximal eccentric contractions (kind of redundant, sorry), so is it possible that we are simply seeing more satellite cell activation and proliferation that is in turn stimulating a more prolonged synthesis rate with a lower peak that is due to the relative lack of damage being done and therefore a lesser need for large peak rates of protein synthesis?

[Nic Branson]

That does seem to be what we know. The eccentric studies do show definitive damage there. In the bodies quest for homeostasis I think there has to be more to it, or at least more total demand. Likely of a cellular nature. The body would not want to sustain a metabolic rate for so long were it unnecessary. The satellite cell activation or type C theory is most certainly a part of it. Another factor may be the protein make up of the fibers themselves. The high threshold fibers contain more Taurine then the lower one and that could also be a factor.

Add in the difference in energy system requirements which is leading to more cellular adaptation by way of machinery.

Get more into the realm of theory as we really do not understand mechanism. Good discussion.

[Joshua Naterman]

That does seem to be what we know. The eccentric studies do show definitive damage there. In the bodies quest for homeostasis I think there has to be more to it, or at least more total demand. Likely of a cellular nature. The body would not want to sustain a metabolic rate for so long were it unnecessary. The satellite cell activation or type C theory is most certainly a part of it. Another factor may be the protein make up of the fibers themselves. The high threshold fibers contain more Taurine then the lower one and that could also be a factor.

Add in the difference in energy system requirements which is leading to more cellular adaptation by way of machinery.

Get more into the realm of theory as we really do not understand mechanism. Good discussion.

Yes... yes... that would be a great follow up...

12 weeks on the same protocol, same muscle, and then biopsy again to see if protein synthesis rates remain elevated in a similar pattern once the machinery has had time to adapt. If the initial increase in enzyme production is partially responsible that should show in the post-study analysis since there would be mostly upkeep as opposed to the large increase in enzyme count right?

[Nic Branson]

That would make sense. Might also be worth checking hormone receptor uptake also.

[Nic Branson]

Might have more info a bit later. Dr. Kraemer is suppose to give me a call later on.

[Joshua Naterman]

Might have more info a bit later. Dr. Kraemer is suppose to give me a call later on.

That would be awesome!

[FritsMB Mansvelt Beck]

I am trying to write the movie script for “Pumping Iron, the Gymnasticbodies wayâ€. It is slow work, but it is coming. Also, thanks to threads like this one. Of course the main story will be about ME. However, the purpose is also to make GymnasticBodies type of training more accessible to the general public, like “Pumping Iron†did for classic Body Building about forty years ago. So, I was thinking that the following scene would go a long way in explaining in simple lay man (and woman) terms what GymnasticBodies is all about.

In the scene, the two main characters, Nic and Josh, prime examples of the modern generation of muscle-heads, are taking a break after their second workout that morning. They are in the shady garden outside the GymnasticBodies Body Building Centre somewhere in California to practice some skills. Apart from their finely chiseled upper bodies, a pair of rings, a pull up bar and a couple of parallets are the only visible evidence that this is part of a serious centre for body culture. Each has his recovery drink (RD) with his personalized formula ready to hand. They are discussing the finer points of what is known about training protocols. The background music will be “It Takes Two to Tangoâ€.

Here is how I visualize the scene and the light banter between Josh and Nic:

Josh having moved into a one handed FL, takes a sip of his RD, and says pensively:

Going to failure with light loads and going to failure with heavy loads are kind of relying on different mechanisms to promote protein synthesis. You get less of a mechanical load stimulus with a 30% load than with a 80% load, but with a 30% load you can basically run through every single fast twitch motor group and push them to failure in sequence, which apparently leads to protein synthesis being elevated for over 24 hours straight. The 80% load causes a higher peak rate of protein synthesis but also returns to normal after around 6-8 hours.

The high intensity mechano-receptor stimulation seems to be a bit shorter lived but results in a higher peak rate of transcription. The mechanisms are not really delved into, but it seems that something is different about this 30% effort. Blatantly apparent possibilities are that since so much more tissue is directly loaded to failure, there is simply much more tissue trying to synthesize proteins and it takes longer to return to normal.

Nic, who has just pressed in a one handed HS (using his RD as counter weight), also takes a sip of his RD, and answers:

The lower load with increased reps causes a slower rate of protein degradation but has the capacity to cause more total degradation than the above. As fatigue sets in more and more fibers are needed and you start to reach the thresh hold of the higher ones near the end. This allows for fatigue of all the fibers and leads to quite a pronounced endocrine response by the body to heal the amount of damage done. Due to the level of degradation recovery time is increased and requires better nutrition. Time is also of a concern between sets, to ensure maximum possible recruitment and fatiguing of all applicable fibers.

Looking at the above you start to see why periodization comes to the forefront of many discussions. The old timers used to not worry about it too much, some adding a single "back-off" set at the end of their strength work to fatigue everything and increase blood flow. If you look at Doug Hepburn, he stuck with low rep sets 3-5 reps typically but he would do 20 sets. The thing to keep in mind with some of their training was that many of the men we know about also performed and they needed to save energy for performing.

Josh switches to a left hand FL, and, after having settled in a comfortable horizontal position, adds the following brief insight:

At 30% of 1RM to failure, for 3 sets, I don't think we are doing substantially more damage than 3 sets to failure with 80%, as the higher threshold fibers are much less resistant to z-disc disruptions and said disruptions seem to be primarily caused by either extremely long periods of repetitive high velocity eccentric contractions (downhill running on a treadmill) or extremely high force repetitive maximal eccentric contractions (kind of redundant, sorry), so is it possible that we are simply seeing more satellite cell activation and proliferation that is in turn stimulating a more prolonged synthesis rate with a lower peak that is due to the relative lack of damage being done and therefore a lesser need for large peak rates of protein synthesis?

Nic follows Josh’s example and switches hands (from a RH one arm HS into a left one arm HS), and muses:

I agree. That does seem to be what we know. The eccentric studies do show definitive damage there. In the bodies quest for homeostasis I think there has to be more to it, or at least more total demand. Likely of a cellular nature. The body would not want to sustain a metabolic rate for so long were it unnecessary. The satellite cell activation or type C theory is most certainly a part of it. Another factor may be the protein make up of the fibers themselves. The high threshold fibers contain more Taurine then the lower one and that could also be a factor.

Add in the difference in energy system requirements which is leading to more cellular adaptation by way of machinery.

Gets more into the realm of theory as we really do not understand mechanism. Good discussion.

Josh is visibly getting excited and almost looses his perfect FL form. He cries out:

Yes... yes... that would be a great follow up...

12 weeks on the same protocol, same muscle, and then biopsy again to see if protein synthesis rates remain elevated in a similar pattern once the machinery has had time to adapt. If the initial increase in enzyme production is partially responsible that should show in the post-study analysis since there would be mostly upkeep as opposed to the large increase in enzyme count right?

Nic agrees:

That would make sense. Might also be worth checking hormone receptor uptake also. Might have more info a bit later. Dr. Kraemer is suppose to give me a call later on.

Josh lowers down from his FL, finishes his RD. He is almost moved to tears when he says:

That would be awesome!

I think this scene has the potential of becoming a classic. Fifty years from now it will be remembered as that watershed moment when GB type training took over the fitness world. What do you think? Of course, feel free to make any suggestions. As long as you agree that the copy rights of the final script (including royalties) will all be mine.

[Kyle Courville]

Nic, who has just pressed in a one handed HS (using his RD as counter weight), also takes a sip of his RD, and answers:

Nic follows Josh’s example and switches hands (from a RH one arm HS into a left one arm HS), and muses:

I'm curious about the transition. What happens with the RD during all this? I imagined some sort of insane hopping OAHS with a smooth BTB(behind the back)toss RD transition.

[FritsMB Mansvelt Beck]

What happens with the RD during all this? I imagined some sort of insane hopping OAHS with a smooth BTB(behind the back)toss RD transition.

I like it. Much better than what I had in mind (just holding the RD with their feet).

[Rik de Kort]

I actually went ahead and put up 'it takes two to tango' before I read all that.

Worth it, trust me.

[Cole Dano]

Where do we find a producer?

8)

[Joshua Naterman]

I think this could sweep the Indie film fests.

[Nic Branson]

LOL that's awesome. Maybe turn it into a live show and we take it on the road...classic

[Larry Roseman]

[A knock is heard at the door. It opens. A masked man emerges from the shadows dressed in a trenchcoat, with a pair of gymnastic rings strung around his shoulder like bolas thowing stones.]

Masked man: Why does correct bodyweight conditioning work so well?

There are several reasons, the first is contraction. Basically, the harder the contraction over a greater part of the

body during an exercise, the more effective the exercise. For maximum

improvement, training to failure is not necessary but maximum contraction is!

[Masked man takes his rings and whips them around the two men who end up in a not so manly embrace and fall to the floor. They turn sideways and watch the masked man walk away into the shadows]

J & N: [together] Who is that masked man!???

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you know who that masked man is who said that?

[Nic Branson]

On my phone so brief here but let's just say Kraemers opinion is not positive. Many flaws in design execution and analysis. Also got to discuss a 10 year study done on female gymnasts at Penn. State when he was there.

[Joshua Naterman]

[A knock is heard at the door. It opens. A masked man emerges from the shadows dressed in a trenchcoat, with a pair of gymnastic rings strung around his shoulder like bolas thowing stones.]

Masked man: Why does correct bodyweight conditioning work so well?

There are several reasons, the first is contraction. Basically, the harder the contraction over a greater part of the

body during an exercise, the more effective the exercise. For maximum

improvement, training to failure is not necessary but maximum contraction is!

[Masked man takes his rings and whips them around the two men who end up in a not so manly embrace and fall to the floor. They turn sideways and watch the masked man walk away into the shadows]

J & N: [together] Who is that masked man!???

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you know who that masked man is who said that?

HAHAHA this totally reminds me of PSO2.