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
I was feeling weaker than usually for a second or two 8)