do burnouts produce better results?

Thumpa50814 · Jun 23, 2008

Doylexxx said:

Bodybuilding truth:

THE HIGH INTENSITY MISTAKE

There's an ongoing debate among bodybuilders as to which type of training protocol is superior. Most people believe that a significant quantity of training volume is necessary in order to stimulate muscle growth. Since this practice has proven itself thousands of times over, one would think its credence was indisputable.

Nevertheless, there are others, equally qualified, who feel that it is momentary intensity alone which determines muscle growth. Only when a muscle is pushed beyond the stress in which it has never received will the impetus for more growth occur. But where and when does that occur? As a matter of fact, the term "high intensity" is perhaps the most misunderstood concept in bodybuilding.Some proponents of high intensity training, also known as H.I.T. and Heavy Duty, go under the assumption that intense means going to failure with heavy weights. Unless total failure is reached, with the utmost poundages, true failure is never obtained and maximum development is stunted. What I never understood was, why must failure occur at 6-8 reps? Why is it that if a muscle is pumped, suddenly the inference is that there isn't enough resistance to grow muscle? The standard axiom is that any activity which can be performed for more than 10 reps incorporates the slower twitch (red) muscle fibers whereas it's the bigger fast twitch muscles which are responsible for the most mass. I believed that myself.

But I'm starting to wonder. Many champions have developed outstanding physiques training for the pump. That doesn't mean their workouts were "easy." It's just a different kind of intensity. One of the arguments for short bursts over longer periods of activity is the comparison of sprinters to long distance runners. Sprinters tend to have legs that would make most bodybuilders envious. Long distance runners, on the other hand, have thin, stringy muscles. That pretty much proves the notion that brief bouts of exertion build muscle better than voluminous training sessions, doesn't it? No. And this is why.For one thing, there's the genetic factor. People with muscular legs are better suited for sprinting. Skinny folks are more geared for marathons.Be that as it may, let's give the "effects of function" concept a fair shot. Even though a sprinter's "set" (e.g. running 100 yards) lasts only about 30 seconds...how many "reps" is he doing? In other words, how many steps does it take to travel that distance? 80? 90? Over 100? It sure ain't 6-8!

This proves a vital and incredibly overlooked point. It isn't so much the amount of reps or the level of resistance -- but the intensity itself as well as the time under tension which determines muscle growth. The sprinter also doesn't practice one sprint a week. He does dozens a day.Intensity comes in many forms. Naturally, there's the length of each session and the poundages used. There's also the rest, or lack thereof, between sets. The speed of each rep, especially the eccentric portion, is a factor as is the force of contraction. The use of partial or static reps comes into play as well. Even the combination of movements will have an effect. There is so much more to stimulating muscle fiber than merely lifting X amount of weight for X amount of reps. That's why I've never been all that interested in keeping a training log. All that does is tell you how much you lifted and for how many reps. It doesn't tell you how intense each set was. And that's the biggest factor when it comes to muscle growth. Please realize, I'm not referring to strength gains or weight gains. Just muscle growth.

There was a technique which was a staple among the old time bodybuilders which has fallen out of favor. They used to say; "make a lighter weight feel as heavy as possible." What that meant was, get inside each rep and force the muscle to strain! It may not look as impressive but that's what induces growth. Your muscles don't give a **** what your training journal says. Numbers mean nothing to them. All they know is stress.The very notion of "training to failure" is fraught with ambiguity. What constitutes failure? The inability to complete a rep? If so, what about 10 seconds following the set? More reps would then be possible.

The only undeniable gauge of total failure would be working to the point where the muscle is torn from the tendon insuring no potential for any further reps! The theory of total failure being the only effective stimulus for muscle growth is as idiotic as claiming aerobic capability can only be increased if you reach the state of near cardiac arrest. The truth is, there is no such thing as "failure." There's only that point within a given range where your brain and nerve endings say "enough!" Yes, it's imperative to get as far into the pain zone as possible in order to grow. But you don't have to live there every day -- every workout -- every set.
Click to expand...

the real bill ny thaks homes that was a good post

Thumpa50814 · Jun 23, 2008

Marvelous Marcum said:

How you managed to bundle up that much stupidity into one sentence is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

do burnouts produce better results?

Thumpa50814 Member Full Member

Thumpa50814 Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

do burnouts produce better results?

Thumpa50814 Member Full Member

Thumpa50814 Member Full Member