Show to Show

[CMoney]

Hey all. Not sure where else to put this, so I decided to pop this article here.

This is a blog from Scott Abel readdressing a training topic that he's covered before. The principles are fundamental, though, if you're serious about building a physique.

I'm an example of how well these principles work in terms of both development and strength! Now we're on to the fun stuff in my protocol: fine-tuning, streamlining, balancing, really achieving that ultimate figure look.

I've been prepping since early March for a June 26 show. This is my longest prep, as I wanted to give it lots of time. After my October show (where I won masters figure), I went back to a traditional program. Straight sets. Hardcore, heavy lifting. Since March, I've been doing an advanced hybrid program, which is a combination of MET (functional movements/human movement model/maximizing O2 debt, continuing before complete recovery, etc.). This program is KILLER. I've just been loving it. We added a sprint day two weeks ago to harden up the leggies. I do ONE session of 30 minutes on the bike PER WEEK. That's it. Everything about this program is designed to get me cut and lean. It's soooo cool!!

Anyway, here's the article intro, with a link to the whole thing:

The Chicken and the Egg Dilemma: One Last Time (Part 1)
by Scott Abel

Development. That is the goal of modern bodybuilding and cosmetic physique enhancement. I think I know a little bit about this. At my first contest I weighed in at 154lbs in 1983. By 1987, I won the Great Lakes Classic at a bodyweight of 235lbs (unheard of back then; in fact my closest “heavyweight” competitor back then barely cracked 200 lbs). And at my last ever appearance on stage, guest posing at the Toronto Pro Show in 2004, I weighed just under 260 lbs. And yes; I have a secret. (Deliberate use of industry buzzword as “sarcasm” here.)

The secret is my main tenets of Innervation Training that took me away from the common accepted knowledge of the time. And my physique soared as a result. And this approach is even more important today; as the same arguments of how to build a physique continue. I find it boring and monotonous, to be honest, which is why I seldom address it (except in my book, The Abel Approach). And it’s ironic that these arguments seem to be divided among two different camps. One camp seems to represent the “Science of Strength” while the other camp seems to represent the “Experience of Tradition.” So what is the debate?

Well the debate is as alive now as it has been since the early dawn of the strength industry. And here it is: "Train for strength and development will come, or train for development and strength will come." I’m here to tell you one of these is correct, and the other is, well, not. As I will show there has been a misinterpretation and misapplication of the science involved. And I will get to that in Part 2. But first some relevant points.

Where most people seem to sit on one side of the debate or another usually has to do with their own training biases. For the sake of objectivity, that includes me. But here’s the thing. The capacity for low rep strength is pretty much genetic. Bone length, tendon insertions, tendon thickness, ligament structure and ligament laxity, even gene expression; all have a profound influence on someone’s genetic capacity to “be strong.” Read that again X 10! But this reality is seldom addressed and it becomes very misleading. (And this doesn’t even begin to cover the basics of the energy systems contribution.) The reality is that individuals with a capacity to be quite strong would still garner great development by training for development first and not low rep strength, limit strength expression; what we label as 1RM strength. And for the record what I mean here by the loose use of the term strength, is “load” strength, as in how much you lift.

However, the reverse is NOT true. People without a genetic capacity for low rep strength will not garner much development by training for max strength in the hopes of acquiring size and shape. In fact, if you are like I am, then training for low rep strength usually only yields two guaranteed results; injury and frustration. The one main tenet of Innervation Training which is now (and always has been) supported by research, and the real world of training is that intensity is more important than strength. Now, read that sentence again X 10. Or, put another way, max efforts are far more important in training application than are max reps. Or yet another way, intensity produces strength, intensity and max strength are NOT the same... .

Here's the link to the rest of the article:
http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2010/05/chicken-and-egg-dilemma-one-last-time.html

(BTW, in addition to gaining mass, I've gotten crazy strong on Scott's programs. Surprised myself, actually.)

[CMoney]

Here's a pic from my first show (June 2007), one from 3 days out from my most recent show (Oct. 2009), and one taken two weeks ago, at 6 weeks out.

As you can see, I'm bottom heavy. Which makes competing a challenge. However, I'm not one to let something like a lack of an x-frame stop me. Through some majorly challenging training protocols, I've put some size on my upper body to balance out my hips and quads.

My goals are to keep those shoulders nice and full and get the hips, thighs, and glutes as streamlined as possible. Fun stuff!!! :) And I didn't start getting serious about any of this until I was nearly 40.

It's never too late! :)

I'm 5'4 1/2" tall, was 127 lbs before water drop in the middle photo, so I was probably 124-125 lbs. or so on stage?

In the first photo, I was around 117-119 lbs on stage. I've had implants done, which weigh three pounds, so I think I've put on about 4-5 lbs of lean mass in the last few years (that's my best guess). It's not much, but what a huge difference it's made in how I look...

[lovetotrain]

Great look. Congratulations you sculpted a very good physique. Where do you compete?

[GYMBRAT]

Stunning!

[Dragon1911]

Wow you look great

[japh]

Well......I'm impressed.

[CMoney]

Thanks you guys!! I'll post more pics at the end of this week.

I cannot believe the changes in the last month. Everything I've been hoping for as far has hardening up my lower body and improve the look of my quads.

Damn. Too much fun.

I did my last sprint workout this a.m. (in Red Deer, after Northerns where my BF got 4th in Men's Masters. Boo-yaaaa!), and all that kept running through my head was "high and tight!!" Weird. I was saying that to my butt.

But it WILL be high and tight. For me, it's all about the waist down. It's my goal to be hard and lean and tight.

It's going great. Should be dialed in SPOT ON for Alberta Provincials on June 26.

[#8]

good post. interesting read. i dont agree with a lot of things abel does / says, but that was a well written article.

[CMoney]

Well, legs are separating and hardening out and upper body is staying full!!! Thank God.

I know a lot of women have the same issue: in order to get the lower body to come in, you feel like you're losing upper body mass and fullness.

I'm far from the perfect genetic specimen for figure, but all this work and a DAMN well-designed training protocol is paying off in spades.

Couple few more pounds to go, water drop, couple a little posing tweaks and we are go for launch, June 26.

BTW, these pics weren't taken first thing in the a.m., dry. I'd eaten, drunk, and run around before taking them.

[GYMBRAT]

DAYUM! your looking great! GREAT work!

[japh]

Yup, looking noticeably leaner than the last photo and only a few pounds away in my inexperienced opinion.

I'm not a judge but I personally don't see you as "bottom heavy" at all. Hopefully you'll be rewarded for your quad developement. It definately adds to your figure in a positive way imho.

[69challenger]

Looking good Crystol! LOVE the legs!!!

[CMoney]

Yup, looking noticeably leaner than the last photo and only a few pounds away in my inexperienced opinion.

I'm not a judge but I personally don't see you as "bottom heavy" at all. Hopefully you'll be rewarded for your quad developement. It definately adds to your figure in a positive way imho.

I appreciate that, and all the other comments.

I'm representing all the women with hourglass shapes out there! LOL.

My legs seem to be improving in shape, so as long as things keeps moving in that direction, I'm satisfied. I want that look of someone who has paid her dues in the gym (as shown by well-developed legs, always the mark of an advanced trainee, IMO).

So far, the judges feedback has been positive for me.

[countrychic]

Great job Crystol. Good luck in your final prep!

[CMoney]

Thanks, Countrychic! Knock 'em dead on Saturday! :D

[ironwill]

Thanks, Countrychic! Knock 'em dead on Saturday! :D

lol, she already knocked em dead last yr and won the show....we are just spectating!!!:D

[CMoney]

Hey all,

I got third in Figure Medium Tall at the ABBA Provincials. Tough class! I'm itching to win it next year and move onto the Nationals stage.

Quick pic: http://www.twixpix.com/contests/AL10/pics/twx_AL10_FigMT.html
(I'm in red.) More to come when they arrive...

Here's the rest of the article that I posted at the beginning of this thread:

The Chicken and the Egg Dilemma: The Size Principle and Real-World Training Implications (Part II) by Scott Abel

In Part I I gave a deliberate rundown of the endless debate in the fitness industry over which type of training is better:

1) Train for low rep strength and size and development will come; or
2) Train for size and development and low rep strength takes care of itself.

I think everyone knows where I stand on the issue; but an opinion is not enough. And it seems neither is decades of real-world results in the industry. So in Part II I want to look a little closer at the science involved and what the research actually tells us. And don’t worry; the goal here is not to bore everyone with meaningless science and big words. But it is important that people understand why they should train a certain way to accomplish specific goals. And once the "why" is grasped then the "how" makes more and more sense. So I will not bog people down with a lot of mumbo jumbo. The point is, if the actual principles involved have been misapplied by the experts for decades, then there is no reason you should be expected to understand the deeper aspects of the principle either. And to be sure Ralph Carpinelli’s 2008 review of the literature led him to an obvious conclusion that “the misapplication of the Size Principle is an error in reasoning.” I have been saying this exact thing for decades as well.

So while many or most strength experts understand the Size Principle of Fiber Recruitment they make mistakes in extrapolating from it, and in their attempted application of the Principle. It’s amazing to me to continue to witness--after all these decades--that people can comprehend a principle in theory or on paper, but have no real idea how to apply it. I want to address this now in Part II.

The Size Principle Made Simple

What is important for you to know is that the Size Principle of Motor Unit Recruitment (motor units control muscle action) states that motor units are recruited in an orderly manner from the smaller lower threshold fatigue resistant fibers (like the ones that allow me to type this article) to the larger higher threshold quick-to-fatigue motor units that we associate with Type 2 muscle fiber employed to gain strength and build muscle. Now the one element that is specified about the Size Principle is that recruitment is dependent on the degree of efforts demanded. This is what I call intensity, and this is where the common mistake seems to be made in the strength industry. Unfortunately experts in our industry tend to filter this principle through musculoskeletal aspects of strength. This can lead to very faulty conclusions, as we will see. The Size Principle of neurophysiology is a neural event; not a muscular one. And this is where all the mistakes about “heavy is better” training come from. It also leads to the illusion that lighter means “easier” and heavier means “harder”; both of which are relative and not absolute, and, more importantly just as often not true at all.

The Size Principle is quite clear that it is maximal or near maximal efforts which recruit the higher threshold motor units. The mistake occurs among strength researchers who make the error of equating tissue-intensity in muscle and low-rep strength as the same thing. And this is not what the size principle dictates. So if we follow the incorrect logic in strengthdom, the experts note that since near maximal efforts appear at the last few reps of a set, then maximum resistance is all that is needed for maximum fiber recruitment. Hence the theory, train with heavy low rep external resistance and size and development will follow. This seems logical on the surface. But like many theories logic is not always correct.

Let’s examine this in more detail by example. If you bench press, say, 200 lbs for 10 reps; for you, the set may not get difficult till about (for example) rep number 7. The strength theorists want to believe that any stimulus up to that point is irrelevant so why not just employ heavier resistance from the beginning? But here’s the point. During that set of 10 the force of contraction does not change. And the resistance through the whole set remains 200 lbs. So the trainee is not “lifting more” as the set continues because that 200 lbs resistance stays constant. But motor unit activity increases; and this is a learned adaptive response of applied intensity that is missed by those who view the size principle by filtering it through very one-dimensional perceptions of strength. This element is addressed in the neural response know as Total Activation Potential (TAP). And like many advanced concepts, while it cannot be measured it can certainly be “observed.” It is indeed an advanced or progression in terms of the neural component.

The fact that is missed here is that recruitment of higher threshold motor units is a developed and refined skill, not an absolute. Doing low rep, high external resistance training before this skill is developed is illogical. And we can see the obviousness of this in other examples. (This would be akin to thinking you can train an infant to run first and bypass learning to walk and stand up without falling down.)

Another example is that calligraphers or painters who rely on low threshold motor unit recruitment and control, still have to develop and refine that skill to use pen or brush strokes within a finely controlled space. It is an acquired skill. Or to see it another way, it is a “neural event,” not a muscular one. As another example, we know that running demands recruitment of larger motor units than does walking. But we can’t just advise a baby to run instead of learning to walk first.

Here’s something closer to real-world strength development by example:

A difficult series of moves for a gymnast may be executing a triple somersault with double flip. We cannot just tell a gymnast since that is so, execute those moves instead of learning all the other moves leading up to that. No. The recruitment and strength involved is a developed and refined skill set! A gymnast is a good example here, since they have enormous strength, great physical development, and yet never apply maximum external resistance in terms of heavy implements. The gymnast does not employ low rep external resistance to increase force demands on his muscles. But instead, learning moves that demand strength expression, and then stringing them together as a series of execution of moves produces greater force demands and therefore maximum recruitment of the larger motor units. They also develop their physiques this way. So this aspect of neural learning cannot be accurately explained by the theorists who advocate a “heavier is better” philosophy; since no such things exists in these examples. The point is made more clearly by examining the Training Efficiency Percentage of strength performance and execution (TEP).

Training Efficiency Percentage

Training Efficiency Percentage (TEP) is defined as the number or percentage of reps in a given set that elicit an adaptive response. If you observe a very advanced trainee and an intermediate trainee perform a set of 10 you'll notice a difference in how the muscle fatigues. As stated above, for the average person, doing a set of 10, may not show difficulty in performance of that set until the last few reps. But in the advanced trainee, you'll notice the first and last rep appear to be of equal intensity. In other words, there is a greater TEP in the advanced trainee than there is in the intermediate lifter; for the beginning or intermediate lifter difficulty only comes near the end of a set. This is a learned response/adaptation sequence that takes place over time. Or to put it another way: learning to recruit larger motor units for strength performance is a skill set developed and refined over time. Advising someone to train very low reps with a lot of external resistance is a mistake because their systems, nervous systems have not adapted to that level of quick and sustained motor unit recruitment.

It is a misinterpretation of the Size Principle to advise that low rep, high resistance training is superior. And it is a mistake because the assumption combines perceptions of strength into an equation that is neural, not muscular; just like with the baby learning to walk.

And there are neural principles at work here, which supersede the musculoskeletal strength principles. For instance, Total Activation Potential (TAP) mentioned above and Maximum Voluntary Neural Activation (MVNA) are neural events going on in the adaptation of the trainee to training stimulus over time.

Let’s look at just a few of the research findings over time that back up my premise.

The Research

In 1962 Berger compared strength results of 2RM, 10RM, and 12RM bench press. Then also in 1962, he compared 2RM and 10RM bench press results. As a follow up again in 1963, he compared the results of 2RM training in the free weight bench press with 6RM and 10RM again. In 1966, O’Shea compared strength results in 2-3RM, 5-6 RM, and 9-10RM free weight squats. Shortly after in 1970, Withers compared strength results by testing 3RM, 5RM, and 7RM for three upper and lower body free-weight exercises. In 1996, Hisaeda et al, looked at the difference of strength gained at 4-6RM, and 15-20RM respectively for the leg extension movement. In 1999, Graves et al did a similar study at 7-10RM and 15-20RM leg extensions as well. Also in 1999, Weiss looked at strength results for training at 3-5RM compared to 13-15RM in the barbell squat. In 2000, Bemben et al examined strength training results at 4RM, and 10RM for seven upper-body exercises. In 2004, Harris et al compared strength results of training at 6RM, 9RM, and 15RM upper body and lower body free-weight and machine exercises.

So we have here a collection of studies over time chronologically that employed different movements and varied forms of tension against the low rep theory of strength.

The result for every single one of the above studies is that they all reported no significant difference in the strength gains among the various groups using different amounts of resistance (RM’s) for training (see as well Carpinelli 2008, Table 2). These are only a few of the studies I have chosen in chronological order to show that the research has been both available and consistent over time.

I mentioned research from 1995 by David Behm in Part 1 as well. Well in 2002 Behm concluded from another relevant study of his that “the commonly repeated suggestion that maximal strength methods (resistance heavier than 6 RM) produce greater neural adaptations or increase in neural drive was NOT substantiated in this study” (Behm 2002 pp. 13).

In fact, this study of Behm’s unequivocally illustrated a direct relationship between intensity of applied effort over increased externally applied resistance. Read that again ten times. This is just like we see in gymnasts, and this once again remains in adherence to the size principle of motor unit activation and muscle recruitment.

So the take away lessons here are many. First and foremost:

Intensity trumps strength.

You do not have to be 1RM “strong” in terms of how much you can lift, to develop a body or develop strength; but you do need to apply max efforts consistently (my career is also testimony to this statement). How much you lift is secondary to how hard you lift. Intensity is beyond a tissue-dependent, reductionist equation. And of course proper programming always comes into play, especially for hard gainers.

Next, since there is no greater benefit by training with very low reps and higher resistance loads, then maybe a long-term consideration for protecting joint wear and tear would be forgoing the low reps protocols altogether. This is one reason traditional bodybuilders are still training hard in their 50s, 60s, and 70s (Bill Pearl and Lou Ferrigno come to mind) while former strength specialists joints are so arthritic and limited as they age that they can no longer train at all. So this is an important consideration for those of us who love to train and workout.

Also many new age experts commonly attack the 3 sets of 10 as archaic and infantile in terms of application. Yet, we see from the actual research regarding the size principle that in truth 3 sets of 10 is as viable or perhaps more so, than say sets of doubles or triples, providing the intensity of applied effort for the 10 reps is near maximal.

As Carpinelli concluded in his review of the prevailing literature on “heavier is better,” that “the pervasive and faulty assumption that maximal or near maximal force, as in very heavy resistance, is required for recruitment of the higher threshold motor units and optimal strength gains is not supported by the size principle, motor unit activation studies, or resistance training studies. This flawed premise has resulted in the unsubstantiated heavier-is-better recommendation for resistance training” (Carpinelli 2008; my emphasis).

Re-read that sentence ten times and send it to all your friends as well!

To me, it has always struck me funny that I am the one labelled as radical and unconventional in my approach to training, where in fact, I seem to be truthfully in accordance with following the actual principles in application. Once again, what the size principle dictates and what has been my own applied experience for decades is that for size and development, “train for development and strength will come.” And in harmony with my Innervation Training Methodology for physique enhancement at any level, the truth is that it is not maximum or near maximum externally applied resistance that yields the best results for development, but rather maximum or near maximum internally focused efforts that matter most (i.e., biofeedback).

So it’s not about “lifting more” it is about “lifting better.” The mind muscle connection is at the heart of the notion that the muscles work the weights; the weights don’t work the muscles. This is, of course, an advanced mode of training in attitude and application. It goes beyond being macho and training your ego to being mature and accomplishing a training goal.

We need to get away from using the genetic elite representatives of any sport as the model for “how to” for the genetically average individual. I know what that is like because I was genetically average and buying into the “load’ emphasis got me nowhere. I got to the top of the physique enhancement game by thinking outside the box, and properly applying the actual principles, instead of relying on other expert’s faulty interpretation of those principles. I offer you the same here.

Often times in any industry the lines of fact and fiction, bias and objectivity, get crossed and confused. And it’s not always intentional. Well-meaning researchers or enthusiasts want to make a name for themselves by establishing something new or different. But often in their zeal to do so, they misinterpret or incorrectly apply the principles. Too often, experts are trying to reinvent the wheel.

Me, I’m just trying to make a more efficient wheel. Or as comedian Sid Caesar put it, “the guy who invented the wheel was an idiot; the guy who added the other three, now he was a genius!” And for me, my Innervation Training and MET Methodology and Hybrid approaches to protocol, are my attempts at adding the other three wheels, while still remaining true to the actual principles.

Moreover, new elements of the modern training environment cloud the issue further. The use of insulin by bodybuilders and power lifters leads to huge tissue leverage and an enhanced capacity to “lift more.” This doesn’t necessarily mean better. And it certainly doesn’t translate into better training for the rest of trainees either. The use of “partials” is the same kind of misguided thinking. But this is another separate article which I will address and “prove” in the near future. So let’s not just trust and follow “trends,” and let's not just trust and follow “opinion.” Let’s learn to trust and follow “informed opinion.” I hope this article serves as a means for you to do so.

So now that you know better, go out, and “lift hard!” ...And just know that lifting hard may or may not have anything to do with lifting heavy. They can indeed be mutually inclusive, depending on a program. But they need not be, as well. The difference for me in establishing a very long career in the physique game is that I learned while many people could out lift me; in my prime, no one could out-work me!

Some of you will get it, some of you will not.

For more in-depth discussion on the 1RM myth of training, listen to my MP3 “The Truth About Training” or check out any of my DVD programs to see the application of these principles in action.

[natenator]

how does Scott feel about you being his pimp?

[Talo]

congrats

[ironwill]

You must work on the shoulder structure to place better.....Legs a bit more, but definitely upper body.......
Good work.....
But pls stop with the abel bullshit!!, lol, thanks in advance!!!

[CMoney]

You must work on the shoulder structure to place better.....Legs a bit more, but definitely upper body.......
Good work.....
But pls stop with the abel bullshit!!, lol, thanks in advance!!!

Absolutely agree. I train the *uck out of my entire shoulder girdle doing Oly lifts of all sorts, traditional exercises, all sorts of stuff. They've improved loads, and I hope they keep doing the same. Legs? Same thing. So damn strong but need some shape and maturity. All about symmetry and balance, right?

It's great to see your stage pics. They are real reality checks about how far you've come and how far you've yet to go...

And as far as Scott goes? He pays me more money than I can count to share this stuff. not. ;) :troll

I'll shut up when it stops making sense and working so damn well for me. :ne Ignore it. Canada is a free country, last time I checked. But I'll definitely try to exercise restraint and moderation. heehee

[ironwill]

^^^ not being a dick, but it does take away from YOUR posts, as i think you have a lot to offer on here....No offense...I got told i was repeating a trainer of mine before to much, and looking back i did....
Great to be passionate, and excited though....

[CMoney]

^^^ not being a dick, but it does take away from YOUR posts, as i think you have a lot to offer on here....No offense...I got told i was repeating a trainer of mine before to much, and looking back i did....
Great to be passionate, and excited though....

Passionate about this I am!! And I don't feel like you're being a dick at all; quite the opposite, so thanks. :)

The thing is, all "my" ideas and anything I have to say about training for the most part would be me parroting Scott. I just feel I have to give credit where credit is due and not appear to have come up with this stuff on my own...but I think I hear what you're saying.

Thought for the day:

There's no one more important than you, and you're no more important than anyone else.