all posts post new thread

Barbell Is a mass building phase necessary to keep building strength?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
kennycro@@aol.com said:
Changes in exercises are more effective than in loading schemes to improve muscle strength. Changes in exercises are more effective than in loading schemes to improve muscle strength. - PubMed - NCBI
Click to expand...
There are many things about that study worthy of comment, and which are cause for questioning its conclusions. I don't have time to go into this in great detail, but here are a few points worth considering, IMHO:

1. The study used Cybex Smith machine squat 1RM as its baseline. From the full article, which may be viewed here:

Changes in Exercises Are More Effective Than in Loading... : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research

"the squat exercise 1RM load was assessed on a conventional Smith machine (Cybex)."

This is not a metric I consider valid as an indicator of "strength" - the article concludes that certain things produce, "strength gains" better or worse than other things, but do we really care that a Smith machine squat improved?

The subjects were

2. "Seventy physically active males volunteered for this study. ... They were not engaged in any form of regular ST [Strength Training] for at least 6 months before the study ..."

I don't know how they were physically active if they weren't strength training, but I don't think this description applies to most of us here, nor do I think it applies to the readers of our forum, who are generally engaged in regular strength training. It doesn't make qualify them as experienced strength trainees, and results for novices are, at least to me, not terribly interesting since we know that novices benefit from most safe strength training protocols.

3. Look at the training protocols used by the Variable Intensity, Constant Exercise group shows things like sets of 2 with a 10RM weight. I don't know what that might do for someone, but I don't think it will make them much stronger.

In conclusion, I hope everyone will read every study they find of interest from beginning to end before determining the applicability of its conclusions for their own training.

-S-
 
Steve Freides said:
There are many things about that study worthy of comment, and which are cause for questioning its conclusions.
Click to expand...

The Study

I understand some of your concern with the study.

However, the Westside Method Protocol that employs rotating exercise has around 36 years to be an effective method, providing it is employed correctly.

Dr Tom McLaughlin's research (Bench Press More Now/book) goes into increasing strength by rotating Auxiliary Exercises.

Dr Jake Wilson (formerly with the University of Tampa, Human Performance Center) touched on research that demonstrated how rotating exercise elicited a greater training response.

Charles Poliquin (one of the best Strength Coaches in the game) promotes varying exercises as a means of increasing strength.

Poliquin's 1989 research article in the National Strength and Conditioning Association's Research Journal was one of the first to examine the positive training effects of Undulating Periodization Training, frequently rotating exercies as a means of increasing strength.

Steve Freides said:
I hope everyone will read every study they find of interest from beginning to end before determining the applicability of its conclusions for their own training.
Click to expand...

Questioning

I am a proponent of taking a neutral position with ideas and concepts that you are not familiar with. Consider they may be viable but questioning them, as well.

After reading the article, read the research resources.

Review various research article on the subject to obtain similar and different points of view.

And last but not least, if the method appears to have some credence, try it.

Kenny Croxdale
 
kennycro@@aol.com said:
However, the Westside Method Protocol that employs rotating exercise has around 36 years to be an effective method, providing it is employed correctly.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with this, but I object to what I read between the lines of your post, @kennycro@@aol.com, even if you haven't said it explicitly, which is that varying exercises is the best method of improving strength, or even that Westside is.

I am fond of saying there are a million bad exercise programs out there but there are also ten thousand good ones. We provide principles-based strength education at StrongFirst, and I believe that our making connections between not just practices and results, but between principles and practices, is what sets us apart from many.

-S-
 
Steve Freides said:
This is not a metric I consider valid as an indicator of "strength" - the article concludes that certain things produce, "strength gains" better or worse than other things, but do we really care that a Smith machine squat improved?
Click to expand...

I'm also a big proponent of critical thinking. As for your point about the Smith machine, I agree that if I'm trying to determine if a person is "strong," I would not use a Smith machine. But for purposes of getting a baseline and subsequent comparison, it doesn't matter. A gain in strength on the Smith machine is still a gain in strength. You're comparing apples to apples. The fact that a barbell squat is a better "fruit" doesn't really diminish the validity of the results.
 
I think it does diminish the validity of the result. An improvement in a machine exercise is likely more easily achieved because it's less complex.

This was but one of my objections - it'd be an hour's work to itemize them all, an hour I don't have.

-S-
 
To the OP:

Your question would be a good one for Dan John's forum. There is a range of experience with ES there. The name kinda says it all, Easy, and Strength. Easy as in simple, only a handful of exercises covering the basic human movements. And Easy as in intensity. A workout that can be repeated most days and doesn't generate too much fatigue. The Strength part is the goal, getting stronger, not bigger. My understanding is that it was originally designed as a time and energy efficient way to get stronger for folks who have other physical demands. It's also great as a maintenance program.

I suspect one could make steady strength gains on ES for a long time, with a little mass along the way. If you plateau, then maybe more mass is needed. OTOH, if strength training is the primary goal, and mass part of that, there are better programs.
 
kennycro@@aol.com said:
Questioning

I am a proponent of taking a neutral position with ideas and concepts that you are not familiar with. Consider they may be viable but questioning them, as well.
Kenny Croxdale
Click to expand...

I like to think I am the same in this regard, but ultimately I compare against myself and what I have witnessed in others. I still tend to take a somewhat neutral position but will share what I have observed, especially if it contradicts what other people are putting forward as established fact.

Very little about exercise is established fact in an absolute sense, since so much of what's out there actually works and the field is cluttered with bro science and conclusions drawn from limited studies.

End of day I'm not claiming you cannot get stronger at the same weight.
 
Steve Freides said:
I have no problem with this, but I object to what I read between the lines of your post, @kennycro@@aol.com, even if you haven't said it explicitly, which is that varying exercises is the best method of improving strength, or even that Westside is.
Click to expand...

The Best

Best is trite and over used. You'll never see me using "The Best".

In any verbal or written expression the only time I used "Best" is with something being "One of the Best".

Optimal

I use this use a lot in posting information. It simply means that the "Fill in the blank" elicits a greater training effect.

Training Concepts

One of the primary keys to a well written training program is understanding the concepts the elicit the most effective training response.

It amounts to the story of giving a man a fish so he can eat or teaching him how to fish.

More Than One Study

I have provide you with numerous individual in the Sports Science Field who utilize and promote varying exercise as a means of increasing strength. I have provide you with empirical evidence, as well.

Your issues with varying exercise isn't really with me. It is with individual like Poliquin, Simmons, Drs Tom McLaughlin, Mike Stone, Greg Haff,m Michael Zourdos and other.

Periodization Training is one of the fundamentals of training for Strength Coaches and Scientist; it based on some type of training rotation founded on the General Adaptation Syndrome.

A large part of what I do is provide research data. What you or other chose to do with it is up to you.

Kenny Croxdahle
 
MikeTheBear said:
A gain in strength on the Smith machine is still a gain in strength. The fact that a barbell squat is a better "fruit" doesn't really diminish the validity of the results.
Click to expand...

Bingo

A gain in strength with the Smith Machine or any form of exercise is a gain in strength.

Machine produce strength increases in the primary muscle groups by taking the limiting factor stabilizer muscle out of the equation. That is one of the reason body builder utilize machines. They are able to overload the prime movers to a greater degree, achieving greater mass.

A great Squat Training article was written by Hollie Evette (Strength Coach/former National 242 Powerlifting Champion) was...

"When The Back Say NO and The Legs Say GO."

Evette was one of the best Powerlifting Squatter of his day.

Hollie noted that the limiting factor in developing Leg Strength in the Squat is the Lower Back. The Lower Back/Core stabilized the Squat.

The Lower Back tires quickly and easily. Thus, what occurs is you Lower Back give out long before Legs are completely overloaded in the Squat. You end up overtraining your lower back and undertraing your Legs.

Hollie provide some Leg Exercise that would address that; another topic for another time.

The Convertibility Downside of Machines

1) Stabilizer muscle are not developed for Free Weight Movements.

2) Techniques is not learned for Free Weight Movements.

MikeTheBear said:
I would not use a Smith machine.
Click to expand...

Smith Machine

It has place in training. It allows you utilize some interesting movement as a means of increasing strength and for hypertrophy.

I don't own or have access to a Smith but employ a method that to some extent is similar in nature the Smith and allows target muscle groups in a unique manner.

Scrape The Rack Press
Scrape The Rack For Growth | T Nation

The link above demonstrates the Scrape The Rack Press. It elicits a unique training response. It is one of my Auxiliary Exercises.

I aslo perform Auxiliary Exercise Scrape The Rack Squats. These allow me to take my Lower Back out of the equation and focus on my weak point in the Squat, Leg Drive.

I perform a variety of Auxiliary Scrape The Rack Exercises which allow me to target specific muscle groups.

MikeTheBear said:
The fact that a barbell squat is a better "fruit" doesn't really diminish the validity of the results.
Click to expand...

Great point

Kenny Croxdale
 
@kennycro@@aol.com, you're discussing the difference between the meaning of the words "best" and "optimal."

kennycro@@aol.com said:
The Best
Best is trite and over used. You'll never see me using "The Best".
In any verbal or written expression the only time I used "Best" is with something being "One of the Best".

Optimal
I use this use a lot in posting information. It simply means that the "Fill in the blank" elicits a greater training effect.
Click to expand...

If I may suggest, please try a google on "definition of optimal" - for me, the first thing is comes up with is "best."

I'm outta this one.

-S-
 
Steve Freides said:
I have no problem with this, but I object to what I read between the lines of your post, @kennycro@@aol.com, even if you haven't said it explicitly, which is that varying exercises is the best method of improving strength, or even that Westside is.

I am fond of saying there are a million bad exercise programs out there but there are also ten thousand good ones. We provide principles-based strength education at StrongFirst, and I believe that our making connections between not just practices and results, but between principles and practices, is what sets us apart from many.

-S-
Click to expand...

When I read this I thought:



I did not interpret @kennycro@@aol.com post as saying that Westside was "the best." I sure as heck did not feel it was a criticism of the principles espoused by StrongFirst. Kenny's post simply stated that some coaches favor switching exercises, or at least assistance exercises, as a way to keep their trainees progressing. This is not controversial. As Kenny noted, Louis Simmons and Westside are big on this and Charles Poliquin has also mentioned this in his writings. This method works. But so does not switching exercises. The most extreme example is the Bulgarian method of training weightlifters. Nothing but the classic lifts and squats. Go to a daily max. Repeat. Also, many people have had excellent success with Pavel's PttP. Then there is the Korte 3x3 program. Working the same exercises frequently works.
 
1 I have that mustache right now. Mustache are optimally the best to make you funnier, stronger and more manly. Because science (y);)
2 I have read about the westside method (conjugate) and frankly its to convoluted for me to understand well. I don't really get the point of doing one exercise to get better at another. it obviously works for some like Matt Wenning or Burley Hawk (which is like the best name for a lifter ever.) Strongfirst Principles work and really well! plus it makes sense to me way more then trying to figure out what exercises to do, how to do said variation. theres one guy on youtube called Brian Alsruhe (who doesn't train that way all the time) that makes sorta sense to me but its kinda a stretch
Also didn't Donnie Thompson have Pavel and Westside coaching? I believe Louie Simmons said that Pavel "reversed engeneered what his strongest guys did naturally." (could be wrong on that.)
 
Jeff said:
Hey wait a minute! What about the topic?!!!
Click to expand...
It’s all @MikeTheBear’s fault. Before the Ron Burgundy reference, the topic was the meaning of “optimal”.

And before that, it was Smith machines

And how valid a particular study was or wasn’t,

And what constitutes science.

And before that, something about needing to add muscle or not.

-S-
 
Maybe a good question is: at what point improving the lifted weight relative to bodyweight becomes too difficult?

For instance, as far as I know, deadlifting more than 2.5 BW is not easy, and is not common. So my guess is that after 2xBW, or close to 2.5 BW, the easiest way to improve the lift is to get bigger.
 
The real question was, will the three day per week ES principles produce the mass required to continue to gain strength, or is something else required in order to put on a little mass? Is ES a long term approach in and of itself.

I think the 40 day program is way cool, but not the subject of this question.

West side is more than way cool, but it isn’t either.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom