PDA

View Full Version : Counter Intuitive Training Theory



btufts
24-05-2012, 04:04 AM
So here it is, 4 o'clock in the morning and nothing but a quote sticks in my mind from the book I've been reading: Anatomy Trains, Myofascial Meridians for Manual and Movement Therapists by Thomas W. Myers. Thankfully lent to me by my massage therapist after sharing ideas from our own backgrounds on myofascial release, holistically, and dynamically through stretching and strength training.

All but one quote in this book sticks in my mind as I lay in bed: (insomnia is a bitch when it wants to be) Think globally - locally - globally.

For many, this means nothing. But from a fitness philosophers point of view, this very broad quote set in my mind. The quote in relevance to the book is talking more so about looking at imbalances in peoples physique. Simplified by the two major chains of fascial tissues (there are actually 11) tugging on the anterior and posterior chains of soft tissues in our bodies creating the typical imbalances we see everyday. (slouched shoulders, rolled upper back, posterior rotated hips, loose gut etc.) The quote however is very simple. Look at the overall problem being caused, isolate where the issue is coming from, see how the problem now fixed affected the overall system. But look at it as you like; Simple quotes were meant to be applied.

While reading through one chapter, I read very simply that anatomically as homosapiens that our anterior chain of muscle groups (less active day to day) are vastly made up of fast twitch muscle fibres. In contrary, our posterior chain (more active due to keeping erect daily) is made up of more slow twitch endurance type muscles.

This leads me to my first statement:

To create an environment of change at a physical level, we need to do the opposite of what we typically do.

Very simply put, for our muscles to change, we need to cause hypertrophy by making our muscle do something that our body needs to resist and adapt to. (resistance training)

Now, taking the idea that our "lazy" anterior chain muscle groups consist mostly of fast twitch muscle fibres, it only makes sense that training at a higher rep range (12-15reps) would contradict what those muscles can easily adapt to. Hence a greater chance of hypertrophy.

That being said, our bodies always know when to pick up the work for a lagging point by the opposing muscle group. In this case, its our entire anterior chain. Therefore, our whole posterior chain is active throughout the day more so than our anterior chain to pick up its slack (in very simple terms). This pattern over the millions of years of creation has created more endurance like muscles in our posterior chain, hence a vast amount of high twitch muscle fibres.

Again, as athletes, want to cause a change that our body will be forced to adapt to. So theoretically, training our entire chain of posterior muscles with heavier resistance should cause enough of a change for our muscles to cause a great deal of hypertrophy. For this sake a rep range 8-10 reps might work best for. (I'll explain further next).

This brings me to another theory that will allow for both rep ranges to be effective for functional hypertrophy: Time Under Tension Theory.

Using Charles Poliquins' theory that a muscle under tension for at least 45 seconds will cause an effective window for maximum amount of hypertrophy, any less than 8 reps would be too heavy to keep under tension for that period of time so it would be ineffective in this case.

Simply summarized: It would seem that training all our pushing and extending muscle groups in our anterior chain for higher repetitions may cause better growth; in contrary, training all our pulling, flexion, and extending muscle groups in our posterior chain with heavier weight and lower repetitions while still maintaining the 45 second rule of time under tension may cause a better response for hypertrophy in the muscles trained.

I am keeping this theory as simple as what I've stated above. I will leave compound movements and other muscle groups not in our anterior and posterior chains as variables. The simpler put, the more room for experimentation.

Now 5 am, the sun is starting to come up and I am going to bed with my mind at ease.



Btufts

XCompetitor
24-05-2012, 10:56 AM
Check out Ronnie Coleman's Posterior Chain,which IMO is the GOAT. If you time his working sets most fall between 12-15 seconds from the time he picks up the weight to when he sets it down. Poliquin is out to lunch if he says 45 seconds is best for maximum hypertrophy.No Pro or top level bodybuilder that i have observed in the last 35 years has gone more than 30 seconds TUT.

TT Eric
24-05-2012, 12:06 PM
Check out Ronnie Coleman's Posterior Chain,which IMO is the GOAT. If you time his working sets most fall between 12-15 seconds from the time he picks up the weight to when he sets it down. Poliquin is out to lunch if he says 45 seconds is best for maximum hypertrophy.No Pro or top level bodybuilder that i have observed in the last 35 years has gone more than 30 seconds TUT.

Interesting, he must be fast twitch all the way.

CP's teach that to build strength TUT is 0-20 sec, functional hypertrophy 20-40 sec and Hypertrophy (only) 40-70 sec.

Eric

XCompetitor
24-05-2012, 01:24 PM
Jay Cutler training Chest.When doing straight sets most are no more than 20 seconds TUT with most sets falling in the 15 second range....

TT Eric
24-05-2012, 01:29 PM
Yeah I listen up to a couple of 'Yeah buddy - light weight' and Waren Branch, etc.. they all go around 15 sec in their videos, plus they they are not going full ROM, partial ROM. I wonder if it's for the video they train this way, less TUT = more weights... I wonder if they train with a longer TUT off record.

Eric

natenator
24-05-2012, 05:02 PM
How about: people lift some heavy ass weight?

Btw, TUT is achieved through more than just increased time. 225 for 12 reps at a 3-2 cadence or 400 for 8 at at 2-1 cadence. I'll take the latter for the bulk of my training and supplement with the former when a break from heavy weight is needed.

Final point: never seen anyone build a big powerful physique by training like a pussy

btufts
24-05-2012, 05:11 PM
I'm very glad you guys are discussing the theory. I'm actually going to do a rewrite of this to put into simpler terms to keep the possibilities of variation endless.

The theory statement being very simply put: train all posterior chain muscle groups with heavier weight focus (failing at 8-10 repetitions or less) and train all anterior chain muscle groups with still high intensity in mind but higher repetitions (12-15 repetitions) for overall maximum hypertrophy.

TT Eric
24-05-2012, 05:56 PM
How about: people lift some heavy ass weight?

Btw, TUT is achieved through more than just increased time. . I'll take the latter for the bulk of my training and supplement with the former when a break from heavy weight is needed.

Final point: never seen anyone build a big powerful physique by training like a pussy

This is not what I meant : ''225 for 12 reps at a 3-2 cadence or 400 for 8 at at 2-1 cadence'', instead what I was referring was more like ''315 for 6 at 4020 or 315 for 12 at 10X0''.

When I do train at a slower tempo, I will do less rep, if I do train fast like RC, I will do more reps, because 6-8 reps at crazy fast tempo like he does will make TUT under 10 secs I don't feel a pump at all, I honestly feel like If I didn't train (going to failure to each sets).

I 100% agree about heavy ass weight, as long as you have all healthy joints.

@btufts What I think of your theory is that a muscle like the hamstring that is made of larger portion of fast twitch fibers and a smaller portion of slow twitch fibers will not benefit that much training in higher rep range, since there is few slow twitch fibers and you cannot transform the fast twitch into slow twitch. Higher range rep IMO will only hit the slow ones and yes they will grow, but they are still a small portion of the muscle. And the fact that you will use a lower weight to start off, the fast twitch fibers will not be recruited as much so they won't grow that much from it IMO.

Eric

btufts
24-05-2012, 06:14 PM
This is not what I meant : ''225 for 12 reps at a 3-2 cadence or 400 for 8 at at 2-1 cadence'', instead what I was referring was more like ''315 for 6 at 4020 or 315 for 12 at 10X0''.

When I do train at a slower tempo, I will do less rep, if I do train fast like RC, I will do more reps, because 6-8 reps at crazy fast tempo like he does will make TUT under 10 secs I don't feel a pump at all, I honestly feel like If I didn't train (going to failure to each sets).

I 100% agree about heavy ass weight, as long as you have all healthy joints.

@btufts What I think of your theory is that a muscle like the hamstring that is made of larger portion of fast twitch fibers and a smaller portion of slow twitch fibers will not benefit that much training in higher rep range, since there is few slow twitch fibers and you cannot transform the fast twitch into slow twitch. Higher range rep IMO will only hit the slow ones and yes they will grow, but they are still a small portion of the muscle. And the fact that you will use a lower weight to start off, the fast twitch fibers will not be recruited as much so they won't grow that much from it IMO.

Eric

Hamstrings are in the posterior chain brother, I stated that they needed to be trained heavy for maximum hypertrophy. Quads in this theory need to be trained at higher reps for maximum hypertrophy.

I left the theory at that. Not even getting into compound movements that recruit all the muscle groups. I guess those could be trained as a variable. IE: squats to be done in different variations, dependant on foot stance, switch the rep ranges around from high to low to recruit ALL muscle fibres and give variation to your program training with a macro or micro periodization structure.

Remember, a theory is not right or wrong, but to be experienced and expanded upon.

B

TT Eric
24-05-2012, 06:20 PM
I thought you meant the other way around, I may read too fast, sorry. Then your theory is not a theory it's a fact (it's been teach in courses like PICP), quads respond better to a higher reps range then hamstrings, they are meant to help us stand upright for a long time. And hamstring respond better to lower reps since they are not use for endurance at all. Same for gastrocnemius vs soleus or biceps vs brachialiis.

Eric

btufts
24-05-2012, 06:42 PM
I thought you meant the other way around, I may read too fast, sorry. Then your theory is not a theory it's a fact (it's been teach in courses like PICP), quads respond better to a higher reps range then hamstrings, they are meant to help us stand upright for a long time. And hamstring respond better to lower reps since they are not use for endurance at all. Same for gastrocnemius vs soleus or biceps vs brachialiis.

Eric

Exactly my friend. I have basically broadened that fact from the book I stated in my theory using the reasoning stated that through development over the thousands of years (I believe I said millions, sorry typo) as homosapiens, our Fascial chains (anterior and posterior I used to broaden the subject) developed tendencies of pulling and tugging (mostly on the hips) causing muscular imbalances, therefore the posterior chain has over compensated for the "lazy" more inactive anterior chain of muscles, causing the developments of fast twitch and slow twitch fibres balance that we know today for our body to properly function on all axises.