What constitutes overtraining

[DOGGCRAPP]

Bulldog::Just out of curiosity, what are your credentials? I asked before and you never answered.

Doggcrapp:: I have a masters in Anabolicology from MIT. A masters in Hardcore Training Physics from Columbia. I took Dieting and Gaining Nutrition up to 4lbs of muscle per inch of height 101 also at Columbia. And I took a night course of "cutting edge supplementation" at Harvard. Besides that I once won the Pinewood Derby in boyscouts, appeared as an extra in 2 VH1 videos and won the best gynomasticia award at my last show and can make a mean chocolate pudding.

All kidding aside--About 15 years of studying everything and anything I could get my hands on---and I guess if you want to research me you should start in the early 90's with my magazine Hardcore Muscle which I am pretty sure started a standard for alot of what came after it and then make your way onward till now.

 

[Bulldog_10]

I wouldnt bash DoggCrapp, from my reading of his numberous posts/articles and my short converstations with him, I would consider that he's one of the few that really knows his shit training/nutrition as well as anabolic usage. oh, by the way what are your creditals Bull_Dog anyways? hell, why does having creditals have to prove anything?

Ok, I'm gonna say this one more time...I'M NOT BASHING ANYONE! I don't believe in his methods...I won't use them...I won't tell anyone else to use them. Is this bashing someone? My credentials...I read just about everything I can get my hands on, I'm a senior at Boston University majoring in clinical exercise physiology...going to graduate school next year for kinesiology or physical therapy...My credentials have nothing to do with anything, however. I'm not the one saying my training methods are the say all end all in training...although I do believe I know more about training than most.

And having credentials proves alot...don't give me that bullshit, credentials means nothing...that's a load of crap. If credentials didn't mean anything, why do we have schools? Why do you need to be qualified to get certain jobs? I for one like to know where people learned the things they know before i follow their advice.

 

[DOGGCRAPP]

My degree is in Engineering, my passion for studying is training, nutrition, supplements, enhanced compounds. As any degree pertaining to the latter (except maybe sports medicine) brings a highly laughable salary at best-I made the decision to get my degree in another field. As far as degrees mattering--you tell me who you would rather go to to fix your car? Someone who has been working on those kinds of cars for the last 30 years or someone who just graduated with a degree from ITT tech in automotove technology. I could go down to any large fitness club chain (LA fitness, 24hour fitness, BAllys) and pull 50 trainers with degrees who wouldnt have a freaking clue what the most cutting edge people in this sport were talking about.

 

[Bulldog_10]

We're not talking about fixing cars. And if we were, I'd like to take my car to someone with 6 years of training from highly qualified technicians, as opposed to someone who just picked it up on their own.

 

[bigp3]

Amen DC,

There is a guy that is a trainer at my gym who has a degree in exercise physiology and the things he does are laughable. Not to mention he weighs a buck fifty soak and wet with a hard on. I believe proof is in the pudding as my father used to say. AKA proof is in the results.

 

[bigp3]

Low volume will work...until your body adapts. You must vary the volume...along with the intensity, frequency, duration, etc...

No one training routine will work forever...variation is key.

Bulldog,

I agree that your body adapts to the same thing over and over. But, I disagree that you need to increase volume to stimulate growth. This goes to prove the overload principle which is based on muscle overload and adaptation. If you use the same stimulus from week to week your body adapts to this and will not grow. Hence, you put an overload on the muscle by increasing the weight and intensity week to week. Your body then adapts to the new stimulus and grows. Another rep, another five lbs. These things constitute overload which induces growth. I know I always want to take the shortes possible route to acheive the results I want and this way of training constitutes this.

 

[bigp3]

I realize that it works, I don't doubt that. I just don't think you will get the best possible results if you ALWAYS work at high intensity/low volume. Of course, if you do this...you will make gains. But I think in order to keep moving forward, you should increase the volume and decrease the intensity at certain times...and then bring the intensity back up and the volume back down. You can't let your body (musculoskeletal system and neuromuscular system, along with various other physiological systems) adapt to one type of training...IMO variation is necessary.

That's just my theory, I don't expect others to follow it...That's just what I've picked up from school, reading all over the place, and personal experience. Everyone's gotta learn for themselves, and everyone believes in different training theories...you gotta go with what you believe in.

Agreed,,,

You cant go balls to the wall 52 weeks a year. This is why you go 6 to 8 weeks all out then cruise for 2 to 3 weeks and then kick it back up again.

I think everyone is missing the whole point of this. It is to do only what is necessary to stimulate growth (overload) then rest, eat and train again as soon as your body has recovered. This allows shorter recovery time and more workouts per year, thus more growth.

 

[bigp3]

Actually, the ACSM (American College of Sports Medicine) has the most up to date info. about response to training stimuli. (Yes, the ACSM was a load of crap in the "roids dont even work" days, but they always had the most credible training studies and actually studied muscle kinesiology.) The ACSM, in combo with hundreds of universities, have proven that multi set workouts are best for muscle hypertrophy. Now some of the Mentzer/Yates followers will say BS, but remember, Yates sometimes counts his first few sets as warmup...yet they progress in weight?? Also, Yates does twice as many actual exercises (he does) equalling a total volume. Now i'm not saying low sets does not work..i'm just saying it is not a proven method of growth. The ACSM does studies on non-drug/steroid users...that is proven science. What Mentzer/Yates have accomplished is incredible...but could not be used in studies because they are altered by drugs. Yes, studies were done on one set workouts/volumes...but they were the same studies used in the multi-set workouts and it seems they just didnt measure up.

I was once an ACSM certified trainer and I think that is bull hockey along with half the other crap they say. The ACSM is not intended nor set up for the hardcore bodybuilder. It is textbook training mostly authored by people who have not done bodybuilding or are aware of what goes in it.

I know the study that you are referencing to. What the missing factor here is, is intensity. For example, They have person A doing 10 reps with said weight for 1 set and person B doing 5 sets for 10 reps with said weight. Well, the person who is doing 1 set is not going balls to the wall with rest pauses, negatives, etc.. In addition, what this study does not take in to consideration is that fact becuase of the reduced recovery time from the low volume workouts you can train more often, thus inducing more growth over a years time. This study is flawed and does not apply to real world bodybuilders.

As for Dorian Yates. You are absolutely right that he does more sets than he says. I as well as him do not count warm ups as works sets. They are exactly that, warm ups and nothing more. There would be no way he could jump on 495 on the bench without some kind of warmup.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Agreed,,,

You cant go balls to the wall 52 weeks a year. This is why you go 6 to 8 weeks all out then cruise for 2 to 3 weeks and then kick it back up again.

I think everyone is missing the whole point of this. It is to do only what is necessary to stimulate growth (overload) then rest, eat and train again as soon as your body has recovered. This allows shorter recovery time and more workouts per year, thus more growth.

Your body adapts to your routine after about 4 weeks, so why not go 4 weeks balls to the wall, then cruise for a week, then start over? That's basically what I do, except I do it in different levels...it's not just balls to the wall and cruise.

What goes on during the cruising phase? Low intensity and low volume? Active recovery?

 

[serapio]

Dorian Yates did this type of training isn't?