Subject: The "value" of change From: FlexWriter Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:25:09 -0800 A recent poster (who I won't name because I don't want this to be misconstrued as a personal attack) made a few comments regarding the "value" of change in a strength/physique athlete's training program. I think this person has fallen prey to a common blunder among weight trainees, a mistaken notion propagated by the muscle press and numerous "authorities." I refer to the alleged truth that one must change one's routine regularly in order to ensure progress. Proponents of frequent change, especially those misguided devotees of the (Weider) Instinctive Principle, suggest that changing exercises and rep schemes, often every workout, is beneficial because it "tricks" or "confuses" the muscles into responding. What's being tricked here are those who believe such nonsense. Muscles don't think and reason and respond, like Pavlov's dog, to varied stimuli. Muscles expand and contract in response to nerve impulses. They perform work. You can't confuse, fool, trick, cajole, persuade, reason, entice, or otherwise communicate with your muscles. Sure, something has to change in order for the muscles to get bigger and stronger. That "something" is THE RESISTANCE, meaning weights and/or reps. After all, folks, the name of the game is PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE, not FREQUENT ALTERATION. So if you're training properly and adding weight to the bar regularly while maintaining proper form, you're making the one and only change required to stimulate an increase of protein synthesis within the myofibrils, which accounts for the vast majority of muscle size. Some people will say that when they, for example, hit a plateau on the barbell curl and switch to incline curls, they're able to increase weight/reps for a given number of workouts before again hitting a plateau, switching to another exercise, and beginning the process again. They cite this as evidence of "gaining." The gaining they notice is in motor learning skills, not actual strength or contractile tissue gain. Let's say you can bench press 200 for 10 reps now. Then you switch to dumbell inclines, where you max out at 75 for 10 on your first workout, 80 for 10 on your second workout, and 85 for 8 on your third workout. Then maybe you switch to decline presses for a few workouts, then dips for a few weeks. Then you return to the bench press. If you're lucky, you'll again get 200 for 10. More than likely, you won't even duplicate your previous best. You sure as heck won't be any larger. What exactly have you gained? Zip. Zilch. Nada. A month of training down the drain. As a personal trainer, I want to see trainees stick with the same exercises for prolonged periods and keep adding weight to the bar. I want to see them keep detailed records tracking their improvements in reps and weight. I don't want to see them flitting from exercise to exercise, never sticking with one long enough to milk it for all it's worth. It's boring doing the same exercises over and over you say? Not if you're regularly progressing, which will happen if you train properly and rest adequately. (Which, of course, is a WHOLE 'nother topic) You get a better pump when you change exercises, you say, and notice more Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness? So what? Yes, your body is reacting to the change -- but it doesn't mean that your body is reacting to the change by growing larger and stronger. That change requires a specific, non-negotiable stimulus -- the application of ever-increasing resistance. The whole notion of the "value" of change as a strength/size stimulus is an exercise in smoke and mirrors designed to fill pages in the muscle mags, make know-nothing personal trainers look good, alleviate boredom in the easily bored, and grant "expert" status to certain folks in the exercise industry. Though its proponents will claim otherwise, the notion is NOT grounded in valid science (valid science [and I emphasise the word VALID] underlies very little of the dogma in the weight training world), nor does it hold up under scrutiny in the gym. You want to get bigger and stronger? Lift increasingly heavier weights while adhering to good form. Flexwriter Subject: Re: FlexWriter and Changing Routines From: BillLog@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 20:26:52 -0800 I have wondered this myself and thing your post is basically spot on. As with most things in bodybuilding, this is hotly disputed and there probably will never be one "right" answer. Anyway, I rarely change my routine (sticking with something I like for years on end with minor changes here and there), I guess mostly because I beleive that whatever I'm using at the time is working (like now) and there's no reason to change for the sake of change (though one theory that might very well be valid is that changing the routine will keep you at least mentally fresh - making it SEEM like changing the routine on a semi-regular basis is beneficial to the body (when in fact it's more beneficial to the MIND)). The only reason that I personally change my routine (or HAVE changed my routine) is when I believe I'll be doing something better. Generally speaking, I have certain core exercises for each bodypart that rarely change (though I think some flexibility and interchangability is necessary - for instance, instead of waiting 5 minutes for one particular apparatus, weight or bench, do something equivalant), but there is SOME variation (usually) from workout to workout. At the same time, I don't think any routine can necessarily be EXACTLY the same from workout to workout anyway. So yes, I have to agree with you on these points, I don't think it's really necessary to change your workout just for the sake of change - only if mentally you NEED the change or you believe you'll be doing something better. I do have to DISAGREE with you about the Weider Instictive Training Principle though. While I don't follow these Weider principles to the letter (many are common sense too), I think that they're nice guidelines and at least give a name to what many of us learn on our own - which is important. I like to think I'm "instinctive" about tweaking such and such an excerise or eating a particular way one day, or whatever. Sometimes if you instinctively believe something is right (like doing a little extra at one particular workout or a little less), with enough experience of course, you should just do it. Maybe that doesn't necessarily follow that principle exactly, but I think it at least follows its spirit. -Bill Loguidice Subject: Re: bench grip width, denise rutkowski, & variety From: RWM2004@CUB.UCA.EDU Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 20:40:45 -0800 Yes you must progressively work harder, but to make the best gains it is hard to stay on one set rep scheme for very long. I don't necessarily believe that muscle confusion is a perfect theory. The order of exercises or lift in my workouts hardly changes. Some of the accessory lifts do change, but they are always done after the main lift of the day for me. Your body will go stale. Now, i do not believe that you should do less than you can in a workout. I do believe that your rep scheme can change. Always giving what you have and leaving nothing there at the end. SOme of the best workouts, however, are when you give it your all and find that you still have something left. It is a great feeling to do a PR and find it easy. I like to vary my rep scheme. This also allows you to find what rep scheme works for you. I have been working out almost 5 years and am just beginning to learn what rep scheme works for me. Paul Anderson said that you must learn to listen to your body and change your workouts not when you go stale, but before. "No exercise routine is better than the determination of the person following it." Paul Anderson