For Powerlifters There Is No Question From the STRENGTH Listserve - 6 Aug 1997 to 7 Aug 1997 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 22:30:26 -0700 From: "Steve T." Subject: Re: cycling ------------------------------------------- On Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:16:13 -0400, "MD" wrote: > Does anyone agree with me on the following point:? > Cycling or periodization in itself does not make much sense. >People cycle the number of sets or reps, increasing or decreasing them, as >they approach a contest. > But they don't realize that cycling in itself contradicts the >principle of growth. This is because by changing your routine in order to >prepare for a contest, it implies that your former routine is incorrect, and >is being replaced by the new cycle. > Why change your routine before a contest, if it is the correct >strength builder?! > Either one routine or another is best for a lifter, it is impossible >for different cycles to be more beneficial than one method. > Sure, many lifters are successful using the cycling method. But it >is a serious flaw to believe that this means this method is successful. > Just because someone is successful using flawed methods does not >mean that the methods are sound. In fact, if a successful lifter switched >from cycling to a sound training method, he/she would probably get even better. > People say "look how big he is, he must be doing something right" >I say "That is a false statement. Because of genetics etc He could be an >easy gainer. He is training wrong, but would be even bigger if he trained >right." > The same argument can be made for the hi intensity, 1 set per >exercise workout. > From my experience, it is false to say that completing more than one >set per exercise is beneficial. But that is another story, I will go into it >and explain why if anyone would like me to. I'll start off by saying that I do not agree with your statement that periodization does not make sense. I've done a lot of reading on the subject (with a LOT more to do) along with some of the Mentzerian rambling of the HIT folks and I personally find periodization makes a lot more sense - particularly in terms of training for bodybuilding and/or powerlifting. I believe it was Fred "Dr. Squat" Hatfield who recently pointed out that you have to build a strong foundation from which to be able to develop your full potential. One set training simply doesn't allow for that, IMO. You can quote your experience all you want, and I'll quote mine and tell you that I've never been stronger or had greater stamina than when I was training with periodized routine versus training with only one set. What has me confused, and maybe I simply am reading this while too tired, but it sounds like you're saying everything is false. Either that or you seem to know what comprises "THE" correct or what was it..."Sound" training regime. I find that a rather brash and naieve staement. There is no one size fits all approach in weight training, but you can apply solid principles to allow one to reach ones goals. -- Steve Townsley Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:40:24 +0100 From: Andy Clegg Subject: Re: cycling ------------------------------------------- MD wrote: > Does anyone agree with me on the following point:? > Cycling or periodization in itself does not make much sense. > People cycle the number of sets or reps, increasing or decreasing them, as > they approach a contest. > But they don't realize that cycling in itself contradicts the > principle of growth. This is because by changing your routine in order to > prepare for a contest, it implies that your former routine is incorrect, and > is being replaced by the new cycle. > Either one routine or another is best for a lifter, it is impossible > for different cycles to be more beneficial than one method. Well I'll disagree. At the moment I'm training quite light (sets of 8 reps) because it is my off season, as a competition approaches I will reduce the reps and increase the weight to educate my body *and* mind to competition lifting, i.e. single rep, maximum weight. If I were to stay at sets of 8 and then go straight into a competition I D/FW Assault Crew, West Coast Chapter, Orange County Branch Photojournalist/Amateur bodybuilder ACE Certified Personal Fitness Trainer wouldn't be able to lift as much, it would be just too much of a shock to the system. At the other end of the spectrum I do not know anybody who can train maximum weight singles all the time and make gains. Here's a link to a coaching document on the CPU's page that I think is extremely good, just thought I's share it with those that might not have come across it: http://www.ipf.com/nccp.htm Cheers. Andy Clegg___________________________________ Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:34:41 -0400 From: "Frederick C. Hatfield, Ph.D., FISSA" Subject: Re: STRENGTH Digest - 5 Aug 1997 to 6 Aug 1997 ------------------------------------------- In a message dated 97-08-07 07:31:29 EDT, MD wrote: << Does anyone agree with me on the following point:? Cycling or periodization in itself does not make much sense. <> I will go into it and explain why if anyone would like me to. >> No, and no. MD, for heaven's sake, take a course! In the meantime, DON'T try to help anyone learn how to lift! [ Part 6: "Included Message" ] Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:36:29 -0400 From: "Eric \"DIESEL93\" Adolph" Subject: Re: Cycling ------------------------------------------- In a message dated 8/7/97 6:31:29 AM, "MD" wrote: >Does anyone agree with me on the following point:? >Cycling or periodization in itself does not make much sense. >People cycle the number of sets or reps, increasing or decreasing them, as >they approach a contest. >But they don't realize that cycling in itself contradicts the >principle of growth. This is because by changing your routine in order to >prepare for a contest, it implies that your former routine is incorrect, and >is being replaced by the new cycle. >Why change your routine before a contest, if it is the correct >strength builder?! Well, first of all, let's say sets of 10 reps usually work best for you. Say, you can get 185x10 on bench. If you try to max w/o cycling down the reps, you will not be able to put up what you are capeable at maxing because your nervous system will nit be adapted to very low reps. You may only be able to get up 230, when you should be putting up 245-250. Also, there is no one "correct" strength building system for a given person. Just because sets of 10 reps may work wel for you for a period of time, you body will eventually gets used to frequency/reps/sets/tempo, etc. You have to change some of those things up in order to fool your body. When I first started working out, I did sets of 8-12 on bench press. I got my bench up from a 75 lbs. max to about 200 lbs. However, I then plateaued for, like 6 months or longer. I ecided to drop my reps down to 1-5 (MM2K Program). I got my bench up an additional 20 lbs. in 7 weeks. Then I switched back to high reps and added another 10 lbs. on in a couple of weeks. I plateaued after that; so I am now doing this: 100x10, 145x5, 160x5, 170x5, 180x5, 190x5, 200x5 Whenever I can get 6 reps on the last set, I will add five lbs. to each set. Once I can't make gains w/ this system, I intend on dropping squats and deads for two weeks and start doing chest/shoulders/tris 3x/week (currently 2x/week) for two weeks. I will go high reps to failure for 3 sets. Variety in very important! >Either one routine or another is best for a lifter, it is impossible >for different cycles to be more beneficial than one method. Wrong; see above. >Sure, many lifters are successful using the cycling method. But it >is a serious flaw to believe that this means this method is successful. Tell this to the HIT and HD people. >Just because someone is successful using flawed methods does not >mean that the methods are sound. In fact, if a successful lifter switched >from cycling to a sound training method, he/she would probably get even better. If a powerlifter stopped cycling, I'm sure his long term results would suffer. > People say "look how big he is, he must be doing something right" >I say "That is a false statement. Because of genetics etc He could be an >easy gainer. He is training wrong, but would be even bigger if he trained >right." Whiel this may be true for pros, I'd say many people at regular gyms that are pretty big/strong are doing soemthign right; everyone is not stupid. Give people some credit. >The same argument can be made for the hi intensity, 1 set per >exercise workout. >From my experience, it is false to say that completing more than one >set per exercise is beneficial. Research had proven 3 sets to be most effective most of the time; from my experience, I agree. Even the HIT FAQ says powerlifters need to do MORE than one sets because: "If it is the goal of the trainee to improve his 1 REP MAX (1RM) on the squat or bench press, then ADDITIONAL SETS ARE REQUIRED to train the specific neural pathways for success in those lifts." >But that is another story, I will go into it >and explain why if anyone would like me to. --Eric Adolph Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 11:42:38 -0400 From: Tom McCullough Subject: Re: cycling ------------------------------------------- In a message dated 8/7/97 6:31:29 AM, "MD" wrote: > Cycling or periodization in itself does not make much sense. >People cycle the number of sets or reps, increasing or decreasing them, as >they approach a contest. So what are you suggesting? Doing maxes every day of the year? I thought the whole idea is to peak your strength so that on contest day you can hit an new single PR. > But they don't realize that cycling in itself contradicts the >principle of growth. Please explain this one? So type IIb fibers don't grow when you use periodization? What about type IIa fibers? They don't grow either? Do ligaments and tendons not strengthen? Do nerve pathways not develop? Are the anabolic hormones not stimulated? Is protein synthesis not stimulated? Does it contradict the "Principle Of Individual Differences?" How about the "Overcompensation Principle?" Perhaps the "Overload Principle?" Or is it the "SAID Principle?" Is it the "Specificity Principle?" The "GAS Principle?" What exactly is being contradicted here? > This is because by changing your routine in order to >prepare for a contest, it implies that your former routine is incorrect, and >is being replaced by the new cycle. It does? Sorry, but you just can't train "balls-to-the-walls" heavy singles every week of the year. Should football players keep doing two-a-days all the way through football season? As you said..."by changing your routine in order to prepare for a contest, it implies that your former routine is incorrect." > Why change your routine before a contest, if it is the correct >strength builder?! So what are you suggesting? Doing 8 to 12 reps each time you train and then walk into a meet and expect to lift a heavy single? Have fun! Or you suggesting heavy single every time you train, and then not expecting to start overtraining or get injured? Even adding weight every week would be changing your routine. > Either one routine or another is best for a lifter, it is impossible >for different cycles to be more beneficial than one method. I sure would like to see some kind of proof to this statement. There are literally 10's of 1000's of very successful powerlifters that can prove other wise. Not to mention 100's of studies showing why this is happening. > Sure, many lifters are successful using the cycling method. But it >is a serious flaw to believe that this means this method is successful. You sure are contradicting yourself here. First you say it is impossible for this method (periodization) to be successful, then you say that many lifters are successful using it. If many lifters are successful using it, perhaps it isn't so impossible? > Just because someone is successful using flawed methods does not >mean that the methods are sound. In fact, if a successful lifter switched >from cycling to a sound training method, he/she would probably get even better. So what is this sound method? You have yet to explain how you figure periodization is so flawed. There are certainly lots of us mislead powerlifters out here awaiting your knowledge. > People say "look how big he is, he must be doing something right" >I say "That is a false statement. Because of genetics etc He could be an >easy gainer. He is training wrong, but would be even bigger if he trained >right." "Big" usually isn't the term people use when they refer to powerlifters. It is "strong." Many of the smaller weight classes don't look "big" at all. Yet they are much stronger that the big guys, pound per pound. It is usually only the heavy weights that are referred to as "big." This genetic stuff sure sounds like an easy excuse. It's an easy way out to always be able to claim that someone is only successful because he is an easy gainer. Perhaps he works his ass off in the gym? Many of us have tried every method in the world to get stronger and periodization is the only thing that has worked. Most successful lifters understand the "Principle Of Individual Differences." This simply means that because of individual genetic differences we all can't possibly train the same way. I can't train the same way Ed Coan trains, because I am not Ed Coan. Some of us require more stress and some of us it takes less to get the same results. > The same argument can be made for the hi intensity, 1 set per >exercise workout. From my experience, it is false to say that completing more than one >set per exercise is beneficial. But that is another story, I will go into it >and explain why if anyone would like me to. By all means, explain! I can't really tell if you are for or against HIT, but it sounds like you may be advocating it. Remember though, even the HIT'ers are now saying 1 to 3 sets. Are telling us that 1 set is all it takes to get strong enough to develop optimal limit strength? You did say that more than that is a waste. I, for one, sure would like to hear this explanation. My personal best in the squat is 800 lbs. How do I continue my training from here? Do I just walk into the gym next week and put 810 lbs on the bar and squat it once, without any kind of a warm up? Or should I do one set with less weight, at 8 reps 'till failure until the next meet, and then expect to be able to hit a new max for a single? Since you brought up "your experience"....please also tell us exactly what your experience in weight training is? Are you eveb a powerlifter? If so, What is your best total and your weight class? Do you have any academic background in exercise science? If so, what is it? Please tell us what type of training you use. I'm sure everyone is very interested. I'll be the first one to admit that we haven't found the perfect training protocol, yet. You may have it! T. McCullough Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 10:43:30 -0600 From: Darcy Semeniuk Subject: Re: cycling ------------------------------------------- > Does anyone agree with me on the following point:? > Cycling or periodization in itself does not make much sense. Someone might, but I sure don't. > People cycle the number of sets or reps, increasing or decreasing them, as they > approach a contest. But they don't realize that cycling in itself contradicts the principle > of growth. This is because by changing your routine in order to prepare for a contest, > it implies that your former routine is incorrect, and is being replaced by the new cycle. > Why change your routine before a contest, if it is the correct strength builder?! It doesn't imply that the routine was incorrect, it means that your goals change depending on where you are in your cycle. When preparing for a contest, you are no longer trying to gain strength, you are more concerned with preparing to demonstrate the strength you have gained in the off-cycle. There is a difference. > Either one routine or another is best for a lifter, it is impossible for different cycles to be > more beneficial than one method. Sure, many lifters are successful using the cycling method. > But it is a serious flaw to believe that this means this method is successful. Again, the best routine is based on what your goals are. The best routine for demonstrating strength (a 1RM) is not the best routine for gaining size. The best routine for gaining strength is not the best routine for getting better at performing a 1RM. > Just because someone is successful using flawed methods does not mean that the methods are > sound. In fact, if a successful lifter switched from cycling to a sound training method, he/she > would probably get even better. Since cycling is a sound training method, your argument is way off base. If cycling didn't work (or some other method worked much better) for some people, then no one would use it. > The same argument can be made for the hi intensity, 1 set per exercise >workout. From my experience, it is false to say that completing more >than one set per exercise is beneficial. But that is another story, I >will go into it and explain why if anyone would like me to. The 1st sentence seems to say that hi intensity, 1 set per exercise if flawed and the next 2 seem to say that it isn't. Which side are you arguing? If, for you, more than 1 set is a waste of time, then by all means don't do more, but don't say that it is the "One True Way" to train (especially with the mountain of scientific evidence showing that multiple sets are better than a single set for gaining strength and size.) Darcy Semeniuk NovAtel Inc. Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 11:22:17 -0600 From: Garry Holmen Subject: Re: Cycling ------------------------------------------- >Does anyone agree with me on the following point:? O Cycling or periodization in itself does not make much sense. Yeah... right. Go tell that to Coan or Karowski or any number of powerlifters out there. Periodization is based on the principle of change of intensity over time which makes sense. >People cycle the number of sets or reps, increasing or decreasing them, as >they approach a contest. > But they don't realize that cycling in itself contradicts the >principle of growth. This is because by changing your routine in order to >prepare for a contest, it implies that your former routine is incorrect, and >is being replaced by the new cycle. I'm almost thinking that this is some type of flame bait... can you really be this deluded? Changing your routine for a contest is all about preparing yourself to demonstrate a 1RM. That goal is much different then you typically train when you're not in contest mode. Why? Because you probably aren't doing too many 1RMs in off season. So if your goal is different why shouldn't you change your routine? And even going further... if you swap out dumbbell bicep curls for barbell bicep curls does this necessarily imply that dumbbell bicep curls were incorrect? No. Same with your argument above. Change is probably the biggest ally on your side as a strength athlete. You cannot keep doing the same exercises and routines day in and day out and make your maximal gains. So if you're changing your routines and exercises aren't you cycling? Have you not just proved your assertion wrong? This is the basis of your problem... you start off with a wrong assertion and everything flows from there. Cycling and periodization are valuable... if you don't see that then that's your loss. >Either one routine or another is best for a lifter, it is impossible >for different cycles to be more beneficial than one method. There is no 'one best routine' even for an individual. Your needs and goals change so why shouldn't your routine? Anyone who clings to the idea of 'one best routine' is just ignoring the obvious. Let's assume that you're failing deadlift because of poor grip strength. Would you not change you routine to improve that aspect? And afterwards you observed that your deadlift was failing due to poor ab strength would you just ignore it because you believe in the 'one best routine'? Why be that stupid? >Sure, many lifters are successful using the cycling method. But it >is a serious flaw to believe that this means this method is successful. What crap... a lifter is successful for things other then his/her routine? I guess Hatfield would have squatted over 1000 lbs based on a routine of chin ups and leg extensions? One of the biggest factors in an athlete's success is their exercise program. >Just because someone is successful using flawed methods does not >mean that the methods are sound. In fact, if a successful lifter switched >from cycling to a sound training method, he/she would probably get even better. Probable, shmobable... you're just guessing and have no scientific facts to back up this claim. >People say "look how big he is, he must be doing something right" >I say "That is a false statement. Because of genetics etc He could be an >easy gainer. He is training wrong, but would be even bigger if he trained >right." Grrrr... I really hate this whining about genetics. Ohhh... I have poor genentics. I am a hard gainer. How the *&^%&^ do you know this? Did you give a blood sample at the gym and they laughed you and your sorry genes out of there? Probably not... it's based just on your observation that some one else is making better gains then you. Now is that their problem or yours? Sounds like they're doing something right and you're just looking for excuses. And maybe if someone else is making better gains then you it's not their routine that is flawed but yours. >From my experience, it is false to say that completing more than one >set per exercise is beneficial. But that is another story, I will go into it >and explain why if anyone would like me to. Your experience does not match mine... but that's okay because I'm making great strength and mass gains following a poor cycling, periodized program. So is my training partner (good thing I checked his genes first.)... Too bad we can't say the same about 1 set programs... must be a conspiracy. Where is Scully and Mulder when you need them? Garry Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 17:57:02 -0700 From: Li Chao Subject: Periodization Is a Routine I disagree with your first point about "periodization equals change in routine," but partially agree with you about your second point warning people "not to confuse association with causality." 1). I feel periodization is a whole "routine." It is not changing from one routine to another. The whole cycle is one routine. It is geared towards increasing maximal lifts and reaching a peak in a preplanned period of time (12 weeks or 24 weeks, etc). The contest is only a public confirmation of the peak resulting from periodization. I use this peak as my baseline to figure out lifts for the next cycle. 2). It is always tempting to attribute causality when something is merely accidentally associated with another. It would be silly, for instance, to say that sweating from a heavy workout is "caused" by "skin touching barbell." You're right when you say "Just because someone is successful using flawed methods does not mean that the methods are sound...He could be an easy gainer...He is training wrong, but would be even bigger if he trained right..." Inherent in here, however, is the presumption of knowing what's right and what's wrong. This requires judging from empirical evidence and is never absolute. For instance, we can safely conclude that sweating from the iron sport is not due to skin-iron contact, but rather, a whole different mechanism, and this is a conclusion based on a preponderance of evidence from deductions using physiological principles, medical studies, and scientific tests. Similarly, the merits of periodization must also be weighed against scientific evidence, which so far actually favors periodization. From a physiological viewpoint, periodization of training can reduce overtraining potential and injury potential while optimizing performance. Recent studies in strength athletes in Finland also found that maximal strength performance was brought to peak levels during periodization (Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1991 Jan-Feb, 31:1, 35-42). While an ideal double-blind randomized controlled study does not exist for this debate, the fact that most coaches in all kinds of sports subscribe to the concept of periodization and that most strength trainers over the last several decades have used (and continue to use) periodization should give at least some credence to the merit of the method. So I would not give up periodization for some other (less proven) method just yet.