Different way to train...

[muscleman1234]

Ok, so I'm sick of the myriad of training programs out there...each touting that it is the best way to train.

I've tried HIT, HST, ICE, MAX-OT, etc, etc....

I've been training 7 years and am still trying to find a decent program I can stick with. If anyone has any suggestions for an optimal routine, let me know...

I was hoping I could get feedback on this style - micro-increments.

Basically, I would train 3 times per week (full body routine similar to HST) and add very small weight increments each time. For instance, if I could bench 200lbs for 10 reps now, I would add 0.25lbs or 0.5lbs each workout, maintaining the 10 reps. In a year, I would have added 39 - 78 lbs to my bench.

I know some people may not think these are big enough gains, but they are consistent, and you know where you should be at a certain point in time....

What do you think?

 

[Lord_Suston]

growth is not linear you need to switch style to get maximum growth and sttrength gains, yes it sucks but you need to rotate and work on different areas. just make sure your form is good and you perform major compound excerciese

 

[Thaibox]

Those gains ar not worth your time.

Getting into a training habit of placing .25lbs onto each succeeding lift is going to force you to do only that.... .25lbs more. There are dudes(and chicks ) here making huge jumps each week.

 

[JOKER47]

Are your overall goals purely strength, or for aesthetic purposes?

If strength is your main goal, I would suggest WSB. That would get your numbers up.

If look and proportion (bodybuilding) is your goal, I would look into DC's program.


.02,
Joker

 

[muscleman1234]

Thanks for the reply.

I realize growth is not linear to weight, but if you lift 200 lbs now and 278 lbs a year from now, will you not have more developed muscularity? Would someone who used a different method (switching style as you mentioned), but still achieved 278 a year from now, be subject to potentially greater growth?

 

[Lord_Suston]

yep you would be much more m7usclular if you could do 278 but most likely you will not see constant gains so you might make it to 250 versus switching style were you might get up to 315

 

[muscleman1234]

I have not completely read DC's program, but would that be considered optimal for a maximum hypertrophy (strength is not a concern really...) program?

lord_suston,

You don't think you would be able to keep consistent with 0.5lbs per workout?

 

[Numani]

Ok, so I'm sick of the myriad of training programs out there...each touting that it is the best way to train.

I've tried HIT, HST, ICE, MAX-OT, etc, etc....

I've been training 7 years and am still trying to find a decent program I can stick with. If anyone has any suggestions for an optimal routine, let me know...

I was hoping I could get feedback on this style - micro-increments.

Basically, I would train 3 times per week (full body routine similar to HST) and add very small weight increments each time. For instance, if I could bench 200lbs for 10 reps now, I would add 0.25lbs or 0.5lbs each workout, maintaining the 10 reps. In a year, I would have added 39 - 78 lbs to my bench.

I know some people may not think these are big enough gains, but they are consistent, and you know where you should be at a certain point in time....

What do you think?

thats basically what Stuart Mcrobert of Brawn fame recommends. adding in some cycling of weights.

www.hardgainer.com

small weight increments.

http://www.hardgainer.com/articles/05-25.html

i would though repeat the same weights at a few workouts. 1lb a week is not impossible on the big exercises provided your overall volume load is moderate.

 

[Lord_Suston]

you might be able to but why would you bother when you could average more per week. all about efficiency

 

[JOKER47]

I have not completely read DC's program, but would that be considered optimal for a maximum hypertrophy (strength is not a concern really...) program?

That's what I understand it is designed for. People report strength gains as well. (I do not follow the program myself, this is just what I have heard.)

Read through it, and ask questions. Debaser and Louden Swain have/are both using it, and seem to like it.


Joker

 

[louden_swain]

Sometimes you have to forget about set training methods.

You should design your own routine. . .something that can accomodate your goals.

This is what I have done.

You can always have some flexibility in your program and frequently change things to prevent staleness.

Good luck!!

 

[muscleman1234]

hi louden,

I agree with you, that WOULD be the optimal way, but its much harder than it sounds! I would assume most of us here do not fully understand the complex interactions between muscle fiber, stimulation, protein synthesis, etc. So we have to have some sort of base to begin with. Someone who understands these interactions must point us in the right direction.

Kudos if you designed your own program, as I'm sure it took a long time and was much hard work. In hindsight, can you post your methodlogy for ariving at your current program? i.e. how did you determine the suitable exercises, training frequency, rep/set ranges, etc? How did you know you were at an optimal method?

Thanks!

 

[casualbb]

Why not try just regular HST?

What you have described will not work well, and I'll tell you why: The body is always seeking to maintain hemeostasis. That means it wants to stay the same and not change. Adding muscle is very taxing to the body, and it'd rather not do it if it isn't presented with a strong reason to do so. In order to cause a muscle to grow, you must load it at unaccustomed levels. You can do that either by 1) increasing the load over last workout or 2) taking time off so that the muscle becomes less accustomed to heavy loads.

Your plan has each workout as heavier, but the problem is, the net increase in tension per motor unit is going to be totally negligible. In other words, your muscles won't notice the difference! It's not going to be enough of a weight difference to elicit growth. There's a reason HST uses increments it does: because everybody who's done it has found those to work best for growth.

On a side note, working so near to your max for so long will also overtrain you pretty quickly at 3x/week frequency.

-casual

 

[louden_swain]

hi louden,

I agree with you, that WOULD be the optimal way, but its much harder than it sounds! I would assume most of us here do not fully understand the complex interactions between muscle fiber, stimulation, protein synthesis, etc. So we have to have some sort of base to begin with. Someone who understands these interactions must point us in the right direction.

Kudos if you designed your own program, as I'm sure it took a long time and was much hard work. In hindsight, can you post your methodlogy for ariving at your current program? i.e. how did you determine the suitable exercises, training frequency, rep/set ranges, etc? How did you know you were at an optimal method?

Thanks!

Its not that bad. . all you have to do is come up with a battle plan.

Ask yourself these questions:

- what bodyparts are lacking?
- what areas require strengthening?
- what are your strong and weak points?
- what exercises emphasize the areas where I need work?
- how many sets do you need to breakdown muscle tissues?
- what type of training volume works best for you?

Also, take this into consideration:

- how much sleep do I need each night to feel adequately rested?
- what foods will help stimulate growth and raise energy levels?

Make a list. . . and work from there. By providing answers to these questions, you should be able to form a good program.

Of course, there are other factors and questions involved, but I will leave that up to you to figure out.

Good luck and always keep a positive attitude!!

 

[muscleman1234]

hey louden,

thanks for the reply. Ok, I see some of your points as easy enough to figure out, but how the heck do you know when you are breaking down muscle tissue at an optimal (or even moderate) rate? How do you know you are not working backwards? Do you use muscle "pump" or burn to discover this?

I think this is the key issue that the million-billion programs are trying to address.

 

[Debaser]

Numani already hit it on the head. Microloading is a Hardgainer proponent, and is ABSOLUTELY effective despite what many people are saying here. Check out some of realgains' posts on the subject. I suggest 1 lb per week on smaller exercises and 2 lbs on larger ones.

Suston the people that are making huge jumps each week are generally one of the following:

1. On steroids
2. Sacraficing form, or speeding up tempo
3. Not being consistant in intensity

If you're working to the limit each session, you cannot add 5 lbs to your bench every single week. Did you add 260 lbs do your bench last year? Do you think you will this year, and the next? Yeah right. Realgains has I believe a 700+ lb squat and 800+ deadlift but I guess the microloading he did each week was "not enough."

 

[Debaser]

DC is really not that different in terms of adding weight...yeah you might add 5+ lbs to the exercise each session but look at what you're doing:

Session 1: bench press 200 lbs
Session 2: Hammer chest 250 lbs
Session 3: Incline bench 170 lbs

Next time around

Session 1: bench 205 lbs
Session 2: Hammer 255 lbs
Session 3: Incline 175 lbs

As opposed to hardgainer:

Week 1: Bench 200
Week 2: Bench 202
Week 3: Bench 204

Even though on DC you're upping the weight more, you're really only increasing it 5/3 lb for each chest exercise, and thus it's not that much different. The main difference is the increased frequency.

 

[revexrevex]

Microloading works, but everything works up to a certain point. It is impossible to keep adding 2.5 or whatever lbs every week. Thats when you have to rotate the exercises, reps, sets and volume. But I agree, microloading really works, if you have the patience. The down side to it is it can get really boring, thats why I could never able to consistently do it. The workouts became too stale.

 

[Debaser]

That's why I got interested in old school strength training, there are some interesting lifts that really spice up your workout. I love grip training, my workout could be boring as hell (though that never really happens much) as long as it had grip training at the end

 

[revexrevex]

I have to give microloading a try again. I remmeber I got to 135 military press by adding 5 lbs every five days, starting from 115 lbs. Did the same thing with squat, and went from 205 to 225 for 10 reps.

I always attributed that to the beginner gains though. I'll give micro-loading a try again, but with rotation of basic exercises and rep schemes every workout

 

[muscleman1234]

I think microloading involves weights smaller than 5 lbs. Adding 5 lbs every week is not the same as adding 1.5 lbs 3x in a week...

 

[casualbb]

Nobody ever listens to me...(sigh)

Microloading is a mediocre way to gain size and strength -- AT BEST.

We know what makes a good growth routine. Hardgainer doesn't resemble that. We know what makes a good strength routine. Hardgainer doesn't resemble that either.

I personally would rather focus on doing the best program for one or the other instead of focusing on something that isn't well tailored to either. Microloading just doesn't make physiological sense.

 

[Debaser]

Microloading is a mediocre way to gain size and strength -- AT BEST.

Casual I don't know if you've ever trained for strength/size but you sure as hell can't add 5 lbs weekly to a lift with any consistancy whatsoever. If you could your bench would gain 260 lbs a year. We all know this isn't happening.

There have been hundreds, if not thousands of trainees who thought they couldn't gain who have prospered from such a routine. For you to say it is a mediocre means for results is a purely theoretical statement, and not grounded in fact.

People in general make training incredibly complicated. They think they need perpetually compounded hyperbolic periodization to get big and strong. Casual you have your head on your shoulders in general when it comes to training, but saying that the weight increase is negligible to the body is completely false. You've been training for how long, 5+ years? Well if you added "only" 1-2 lbs to your lifts every week (and this is a PROVEN method), by now you could have numbers like:
350+ lb bench
500 lb squat
600 lb deadlift

So what are they now? And even though there is not an absolute correlation between strength and size, there is a STRONG one, and I'd be willing to bet you'd be a lot bigger right now. Success is all about focus and progression. That's been hardgainer's motto for the past decade.