Gym & Misc General Health and Fitness Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

aerobic work is interesting too. if you ask someone to run 20mins (as an example), they'll run that 20 as fast they can so they're practically rooted at the end. the belief that each and every workout needs to leave you in a sweaty mess is rife, and it's why so many folks don't improve or burnout.
MMM, this describes me to a T, I run around 40-45 minutes, I must be a relic of the past, old school ie. run until you vomit, I usually have to sit under a cool shower for a few minutes to recover. Should I run within myself for better results?
 
That is a big call. It's also ridiculous.

Who are these record holders for both strength and power over the last decades and where can I read/watch them or those training them state that their training was essentially 1 - 2 sets for a number of muscle groups with the second set being to failure?

Just head over to Instagram mate where you will find the worlds best "qualified" strength and conditioning coaches posting said information ;)
 
That is a big call. It's also ridiculous.

Who are these record holders for both strength and power over the last decades and where can I read/watch them or those training them state that their training was essentially 1 - 2 sets for a number of muscle groups with the second set being to failure?

Norway
 

Log in to remove this ad.


You mean these Norwegian’s that legitimately train he complete opposite of what you’re suggesting?
“The Norwegians recognized this, so with the new routines, both the training frequency and the total training volume were dramatically increased, but intensity was reduced. In this experiment, the average intensity was 72% to 74% of 1RM for squat, bench, and deadlift.

You probably can do 10 to 12 reps with that weight, but in this experiment, reps were between 3 and 8 for the big lifts (squat, bench press, deadlift), so the only time the lifters were grinding lifts were when they were going for new PRs at the end of the program.”
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/h...rch-on-highly-trained-norwegian-powerlifters/
 
Last edited:
You mean these Norwegian’s that legitimately train he complete opposite of what you’re suggesting?
“The Norwegians recognized this, so with the new routines, both the training frequency and the total training volume were dramatically increased, but intensity was reduced. In this experiment, the average intensity was 72% to 74% of 1RM for squat, bench, and deadlift.

You probably can do 10 to 12 reps with that weight, but in this experiment, reps were between 3 and 8 for the big lifts (squat, bench press, deadlift), so the only time the lifters were grinding lifts were when they were going for new PRs at the end of the program.”
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/h...rch-on-highly-trained-norwegian-powerlifters/

a bit like running or cycling or anything else really.....don't race/comp your training....pick your moment/event to go for the PB

on 'strength' days, i'm likely to leave a rep or two in the tank. once every few weeks i may push it to the end on the final set, but the risk of frying my CNS is too large to do it every session, given the cycling and stuff i do on top of weight room workouts.

interestingly, the norwegians also have some of highest reported VO2 max recorded -> their cross country skiiers. not just big boys/girls, but big engines too. also very good at training their lactate threshold -> how high they can redline that engine.
 
MMM, this describes me to a T, I run around 40-45 minutes, I must be a relic of the past, old school ie. run until you vomit, I usually have to sit under a cool shower for a few minutes to recover. Should I run within myself for better results?

not necessarily. use that 45 min run as a slower paced workout. a run at this length should be at at an RPE of about 5-6.

if you want to do a faster continuous effort, do shorter tempo runs of 20-30mins (@RPE 6-7). for higher intensity, start looking at intervals, say 2-4 x 4-6 mins @RPE8 with a 3:1 w:r ratio If you really want to smash it, then 4-6x 90sec-2min efforts @RPE9 with 30-60sec recoveries.

manipulate your intensity, duration & volume to work your different energy systems.
 
not necessarily. use that 45 min run as a slower paced workout. a run at this length should be at at an RPE of about 5-6.

if you want to do a faster continuous effort, do shorter tempo runs of 20-30mins (@RPE 6-7). for higher intensity, start looking at intervals, say 2-4 x 4-6 mins @RPE8 with a 3:1 w:r ratio If you really want to smash it, then 4-6x 90sec-2min efforts @RPE9 with 30-60sec recoveries.

manipulate your intensity, duration & volume to work your different energy systems.

Solid recommendations but you train for what you need

If you just train to stay fit etc then you shouldn't need a lot of other work but max speed and true aerobic capacity work as i mentioned above

If you're training for sport then once max speed and aerobic capacity have been literally improved upon (backed by your own data) then you can move to more glycolytic work (incomplete rest as above) but you'll get 5 - 6 exposures to this type of training before you start going backwards, not to mention that it'll drive some of your max speed down because of the fatigue it builds up as well
 
Picked up some atlas stones for home on the weekend, got them for nothing so was pretty happy! Think the small one is 30kg and the other two are between 60kg - 70kg. Just need to get something I can drop the stones onto now so I don't crack them (or the ground).

Next up is making some farmers carry bars :D

Got to set up a little home gym in the garage area, I'll still be going to my normal gym but on weekends and after work I'll have more time to play around with my home setup.

31421730_981536445328774_8449580695763812352_n.jpg
 
Picked up some atlas stones for home on the weekend, got them for nothing so was pretty happy! Think the small one is 30kg and the other two are between 60kg - 70kg. Just need to get something I can drop the stones onto now so I don't crack them (or the ground).

Next up is making some farmers carry bars :D

Got to set up a little home gym in the garage area, I'll still be going to my normal gym but on weekends and after work I'll have more time to play around with my home setup.

31421730_981536445328774_8449580695763812352_n.jpg

Good thing is that you won't have anything to contribute to
Irritating people/things that annoy you in the gym II
 
Solid recommendations but you train for what you need

If you just train to stay fit etc then you shouldn't need a lot of other work but max speed and true aerobic capacity work as i mentioned above

If you're training for sport then once max speed and aerobic capacity have been literally improved upon (backed by your own data) then you can move to more glycolytic work (incomplete rest as above) but you'll get 5 - 6 exposures to this type of training before you start going backwards, not to mention that it'll drive some of your max speed down because of the fatigue it builds up as well

yep, the prescription above was more for a 10km runner, which is kind of what jason can be if he's running at 40-45 mins i'd say. but that's just an assumption. more about ways to manipulate his runs so he isn't racing 40-45 min every time he wants to go for a run. why wouldn't you want to mix it up!

personally, nothing beats the masochism of a 400/800m. was doing some masters track. you want pain? run 300+300m with 30" rest in between. you get a full 15-20 min recovery, do it again and you're done. you've just sprinted 1200m. :sick: definitely prefer the shorter acceleration / max velocity work!
 
What is the optimal training volume?

Most research points towards 12-18 sets per week being the optimal (as per a few very good meta-reviews), with the dose-response curve flattening out around that range - meaning that 18 sets being 50% more volume than 12 sets, but only a few percentage points more effective for the rate of muscle gain.

The main problem with saying that you should "always" do more volume because that will give you more muscle mass, is that you are operating within the belief that there is an infinite growth potential - and I think we all know there isn’t.

So in one sense, "all roads lead to Rome" and the only difference between doing 2-3x the volume of something more conservative (i.e. 2-3 sets 2-3x/week vs 6-8 sets 2-3x/week) is that you will reach your genetic potential eventually, but it will take you slightly more time.

If you plan to lift weights for a few years, you should eventually get there anyway, and if it takes you 2-3 years or 4-5 years isn’t really *that* relevant. I just tend to think that being more conservative allows you to enjoy the process more, and lower the risk of hurting yourself.

So we can debate "optimal" all day long, but at the end of the day - your biology will determine how big you can really get.

This is probably really hard for some people to hear, but liberating for even more people, especially those who tend to obsess about chasing optimal all the time.

Having said that, I think there are many people out there who are still not even close to their genetic potential, simply because they chronically undereat and/or overtrain/undertrain (overtrain is the most common one in the people I work with).

(search for Casey Butt’s muscular potential calculator if you want to check this for yourself)

There is good reason to believe that some of the low- or non-responders simply need more volume to make anything happen, but remember that a given volume should also be balanced with proper recovery. And if you’re not doing what needs to be done to ensure proper recovery, you will forever be forced to do a low-volume/frequency routine - as anything more than that causes excessive pain or fatigue.

Start with recovery (stress management, sleep and nutrition), that will improve your growth potential more than going from e.g. 2-3 hard sets a couple of times per week to 4-6+ sets.

In this context, I think those 2-3 hard sets deserve the "optimal" denomination more than the volumes proposed by various meta-reviews. It’s a conservative but still efficient dose, that will allow you to (eventually) reach your genetic potential with less risk of overreaching, injury or loss of motivation.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think you’re severely underestimating how long you’ll make progress for.
No one ever reaches their peak in 5 years of training; let alone 2-3.
Most guys I see appear to be their biggest/strongest well into their 30s (heck, the first person to ever total 3000lb was 46 and Ronnie Coleman was 41 when he last won the Olympia) so unless you start lifting in your late 30s you’re looking at DECADES until you peak (and imo even then it’s only because biology catches up with you).

Also, sets is only 1 of 4 variables when it comes to volume.
Most studies and reviews demonstrate that unless you’re using light loads (25+ rep sorta style) your sets don’t have to be to failure to make progress as long as volume is matched (most actually show that stopping the set based on a movement speed reduction % yields best results for strength at least).
In layman’s terms; if you’re using 100kg it doesn’t matter whether you do 3x12, 4x9, 6x6, 9x4 or 12x3.
 
What is the optimal training volume?

Most research points towards 12-18 sets per week being the optimal (as per a few very good meta-reviews), with the dose-response curve flattening out around that range - meaning that 18 sets being 50% more volume than 12 sets, but only a few percentage points more effective for the rate of muscle gain.

The main problem with saying that you should "always" do more volume because that will give you more muscle mass, is that you are operating within the belief that there is an infinite growth potential - and I think we all know there isn’t.

So in one sense, "all roads lead to Rome" and the only difference between doing 2-3x the volume of something more conservative (i.e. 2-3 sets 2-3x/week vs 6-8 sets 2-3x/week) is that you will reach your genetic potential eventually, but it will take you slightly more time.

If you plan to lift weights for a few years, you should eventually get there anyway, and if it takes you 2-3 years or 4-5 years isn’t really *that* relevant. I just tend to think that being more conservative allows you to enjoy the process more, and lower the risk of hurting yourself.

So we can debate "optimal" all day long, but at the end of the day - your biology will determine how big you can really get.

This is probably really hard for some people to hear, but liberating for even more people, especially those who tend to obsess about chasing optimal all the time.

Having said that, I think there are many people out there who are still not even close to their genetic potential, simply because they chronically undereat and/or overtrain/undertrain (overtrain is the most common one in the people I work with).

(search for Casey Butt’s muscular potential calculator if you want to check this for yourself)

There is good reason to believe that some of the low- or non-responders simply need more volume to make anything happen, but remember that a given volume should also be balanced with proper recovery. And if you’re not doing what needs to be done to ensure proper recovery, you will forever be forced to do a low-volume/frequency routine - as anything more than that causes excessive pain or fatigue.

Start with recovery (stress management, sleep and nutrition), that will improve your growth potential more than going from e.g. 2-3 hard sets a couple of times per week to 4-6+ sets.

In this context, I think those 2-3 hard sets deserve the "optimal" denomination more than the volumes proposed by various meta-reviews. It’s a conservative but still efficient dose, that will allow you to (eventually) reach your genetic potential with less risk of overreaching, injury or loss of motivation.

Maybe state that this isn't your own work and it's copied and pasted from Facebook
 
What is the optimal training volume?

Most research points towards 12-18 sets per week being the optimal (as per a few very good meta-reviews), with the dose-response curve flattening out around that range - meaning that 18 sets being 50% more volume than 12 sets, but only a few percentage points more effective for the rate of muscle gain.

The main problem with saying that you should "always" do more volume because that will give you more muscle mass, is that you are operating within the belief that there is an infinite growth potential - and I think we all know there isn’t.

So in one sense, "all roads lead to Rome" and the only difference between doing 2-3x the volume of something more conservative (i.e. 2-3 sets 2-3x/week vs 6-8 sets 2-3x/week) is that you will reach your genetic potential eventually, but it will take you slightly more time.

If you plan to lift weights for a few years, you should eventually get there anyway, and if it takes you 2-3 years or 4-5 years isn’t really *that* relevant. I just tend to think that being more conservative allows you to enjoy the process more, and lower the risk of hurting yourself.

So we can debate "optimal" all day long, but at the end of the day - your biology will determine how big you can really get.

This is probably really hard for some people to hear, but liberating for even more people, especially those who tend to obsess about chasing optimal all the time.

Having said that, I think there are many people out there who are still not even close to their genetic potential, simply because they chronically undereat and/or overtrain/undertrain (overtrain is the most common one in the people I work with).

(search for Casey Butt’s muscular potential calculator if you want to check this for yourself)

There is good reason to believe that some of the low- or non-responders simply need more volume to make anything happen, but remember that a given volume should also be balanced with proper recovery. And if you’re not doing what needs to be done to ensure proper recovery, you will forever be forced to do a low-volume/frequency routine - as anything more than that causes excessive pain or fatigue.

Start with recovery (stress management, sleep and nutrition), that will improve your growth potential more than going from e.g. 2-3 hard sets a couple of times per week to 4-6+ sets.

In this context, I think those 2-3 hard sets deserve the "optimal" denomination more than the volumes proposed by various meta-reviews. It’s a conservative but still efficient dose, that will allow you to (eventually) reach your genetic potential with less risk of overreaching, injury or loss of motivation.

What is your advice to identify the individual volume?
Would you increase it over weeks - maybe to overreaching - make a deload and start with less volume?
:)
 
What is your advice to identify the individual volume?
Would you increase it over weeks - maybe to overreaching - make a deload and start with less volume?
:)

That question requires a long answer, and Ablett is actually planning to set up either an online course or a membership solution covering this in depth.
 
Ah man, I’m having horrible health problems. In and out of ER this past week, and a blood test every second day. Potential surgery coming up too.

Haven’t trained since this all started on Friday.

I’m missing it, but it’s funny how insignificant it all is with perspective.

:shrug:

Health update. Out of ER, but not out of trouble. Can't train for another couple of months.

Also just found out partner's 60 year old dad with no medical problems, (including a completion of a full medical 2 months ago) has AML Cancer as of this week. Just when I need the gym more than ever for the distraction, life happens. *.
 
Health update. Out of ER, but not out of trouble. Can't train for another couple of months.

Also just found out partner's 60 year old dad with no medical problems, (including a completion of a full medical 2 months ago) has AML Cancer as of this week. Just when I need the gym more than ever for the distraction, life happens. ****.
Sympathies to you and your family vonn, my father passed away from AML in February 2013. Hope everything works out as well as can be expected in the circumstances.
 
Sympathies to you and your family vonn, my father passed away from AML in February 2013. Hope everything works out as well as can be expected in the circumstances.

Thank you.
 
Hi guys, just wondering what you think of my workout. I've been doing PPL for a long time, usually spread over 5 to 7 days. Recently I had gone to 4 days (3 days in a row, then 1 day off) but my body didn't like that too much.

I've now started doing 3 full body workouts per week, with some form of cardio on most other days.
Day 1: 4x8: squats, bench press, pullups, military press, BB curls, abs
Day 3: 5x5: deadlifts, bent-over rows, incline bench press, lateral raises, triceps extensions, hammer curls
Day 5: 3x12: lunges, dips, chin-ups, DB shoulder press, calf raises, abs
2 days off

I'm trying to do everything in under an hour but that's impossible for the 5x5 day, with warmup sets and rest periods. Do you reckon it's ok to train longer for once or should I cut some exercises? I always thought smaller muscles benefit more from high-rep exercises.
 
Hi Fit and healthy guys and gals, I just have a few general questions I was hoping you might know.
I have just returned to the gym for the first time in years, and boy yeah it feels great, however I was told that its best to no back up and go every single day when starting out. I am very sore so I kinda get it.
What can I do on my " day off" so to speak so I don't undo any good work.

I have to work 10-12 hour days most weekends so I make sure to pack a good lunch and lots of water. I have thought about going to the gym early early morning and just going for a run before work or something, otherwise i feel like i am bitching out a little bit, I don't have any more excuses and need to get my life back on track. Or perhaps any other suggestions when I am not at the gym.

I have fixed my diet, to meat, fruit, veg, fish and rice for now and lots of water, that seems good, I have a lot more zip if that makes sense and cut all forms of alcohol, and sugars out.

Cheers.
 
Hi guys, just wondering what you think of my workout. I've been doing PPL for a long time, usually spread over 5 to 7 days. Recently I had gone to 4 days (3 days in a row, then 1 day off) but my body didn't like that too much.

I've now started doing 3 full body workouts per week, with some form of cardio on most other days.
Day 1: 4x8: squats, bench press, pullups, military press, BB curls, abs
Day 3: 5x5: deadlifts, bent-over rows, incline bench press, lateral raises, triceps extensions, hammer curls
Day 5: 3x12: lunges, dips, chin-ups, DB shoulder press, calf raises, abs
2 days off

I'm trying to do everything in under an hour but that's impossible for the 5x5 day, with warmup sets and rest periods. Do you reckon it's ok to train longer for once or should I cut some exercises? I always thought smaller muscles benefit more from high-rep exercises.

1 - i'd like a wider spread of reps so maybe 5, 12 and 20 for each day

2 - having rep specific days is fine but don't make exercises fit the reps if it doesn't quite work such as arms on 5 x 5 days - have 3 - 4 ex on 5 x 5 day, 4 - 6 on 3 - 4 x 12 rep day and 5 - 8 on 2 - 3 x 20 rep day

3 - depending on your ex selection for each day you might do some 20 rep arm stuff on 5 or 12 rep day
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top