267018841-high-density-training-pdf.pdf

HDT High Density Training Eclectic & Strategic Bodybuilding for the Natural Athlete

Brian D. Johnston (50 Years Young and Still Training to Look Good)

1

Copyright 2015 by Brian D. Johnston All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form Published by BDJ Publishing 5 Abigail Court, Sudbury, ON

Care has been taken to confirm the accuracy of information presented in this manual. The author, editors, and the publisher, however, cannot accept any responsibility for errors or omissions in this manual, and make no warranty, express or implied, with respect to its contents.

The information in this manual is intended only for healthy men and women. People with health problems should not follow the suggestions without a physician's approval. Before beginning any exercise or dietary program, always consult with your doctor.

2

Table of Contents Introduction

5

1. Bodybuilding and NOT Weight Lifting

8

Adaptation and Specificity in Training General vs. Specific Strength Improvement Building Muscle with ‘Sufficient’ Stimulus Protein Turnover Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy? Developing a Strategy of Challenges Peaking the Muscles Challenging Some Notions Machines vs. Free-weights The Bane of Consolidation vs. Bodybuilding 10 Rules on How NOT to Bodybuild

8 13 16 24 27 30 33 36 39 45 50

2. Practical Bodybuilding

52

3. Rep & Set Challenges

58

30-15-8 Zig-Zag Reps 50-Rep Challenge Rest-Pause + Pump Combo Extended Rest-Pause & Rest-Pause Clusters Multi + Single Rep Combo Leverage Combination Cadence Variation Reverse Stutter & Flex Combo Tension/Rest Challenge Steady-state Superset Descending Cluster Alternating Repetitions Full + Burns Combo Full + Zone Combo Fractal Stutters A Word of Caution on Loading

59 63 65 69 71 74 76 79 81 82 83 85 87 90 92 95 97

4. How’s this for Variation?

99

A Little More Guidance – Specific & General Examples Varying Repetitions & Set Volume

5. Muscleaneous

104 106

109

3

Very few men have penned as many words on the subject of resistance training as Arthur Jones, the man considered to be the father of High Intensity Training (HIT). Brian Johnston is one who can make such a claim. It is one thing to possess a sharp intellect, it is yet another to be able to govern that intelligence through an honest open mind such as Johnston has done over the past 20 years of his Iron Game endeavours. He has addressed this controversial industry through years of training and rehabilitating clients, publishing a myriad of articles, books, magazines and an entire fitness library while presiding for many years over a very successful training certification program, the International Association of Resistance Trainers (I.A.R.T.). His latest contribution, High Density Training, offers readers advanced schooling in pure bodybuilding. Brian not only distinguishes the craft of building muscle from that of strength training, powerlifting and weightlifting, but daringly advances the art of subjective (free styling) bodybuilding over that of the decades long orthodoxy of structured routines. Acknowledging other systems of building muscle, Johnston writes: “There is on-going confusion in the weight training world as to what constitutes ‘effective’ application when trying to optimize muscle development. Yes, there is more than one way to ‘skin a cat,’ and certainly many ways to achieve one’s bodybuilding greatness (a passion and obsession with many males in particular); and with very few exceptions just about any weight training program (given enough effort and a drop of dedication) will produce some muscle hypertrophy. However, there are considerable differences in training application when it comes to optimizing hypertrophy to ‘look’ like a bodybuilder…” Brian backs up his assertions by laying out numerous techniques and protocols designed specifically for pronounced muscle hypertrophy. Some of his methods may seem familiar to the experienced trainer, but I guarantee MOST will be new to all readers. His hard work, dedication and accumulated experience has manifested an expertise that is clearly evident in this captivating, easy to read manual. This book needs to be read by anyone wishing to consistently enhance and heighten their muscular appearance through resistance training. Randy Roach, Author of Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors I'm interested in your 50-rep sets and routine. My best trainee made it through 4 of 5 exercises and could not make the fifth, the stiff-legged deadlift. He had to lie down after 20 reps. Thanks, Ellington Darden, Ph.D. A beautiful mind, again it produces another innovative, but logical approach to weight training, stimulating my own personal training goals, and deeper passion for compelling my clients and staffs achievements! I am in debt to Brian D Johnston forever! Stephen J. Downes Master Fitness Clinician & Owner |Prescribed Exercise Clinic Owner & Director of Education | Academy of Registered Fitness Clinicians

4

INTRODUCTION Nearly every book on any subject, particularly non-fiction, is an argument to support a primary idea. There may be more than one idea, but at the very least there is a general direction of thought. This book is no different, and several of my writings focused on various ideas from rehabilitation to general fitness, to integrating different sciences within fitness to workout strategy concepts. I had two reasons to develop this book: 1. As time (age) marches on and as ideas become more lucid in both my training and philosophy, I needed to clarify those ideas on paper; doing so facilitates any updating of my physical and psychological world, which may do the same for those interested in partaking in that journey. Certainly I need to catalog any ideas since I tend to forget more than I remember. 2. There is on-going confusion in the weight training world as to what constitutes ‘effective’ application when trying to optimize muscle development. Yes, there is more than one way to ‘skin a cat,’ and certainly many ways to achieve one’s bodybuilding greatness (a passion and obsession among many males in particular); and with very few exceptions just about any weight training program (given enough effort and a drop of dedication) will produce some muscle hypertrophy. However, there are considerable differences in training application when it comes to optimizing hypertrophy to ‘look’ like a bodybuilder (albeit a slimmed-down version to those in magazines and on steroids) as opposed to simply producing some hypertrophy. My annoyance are in those who may discover a system or method they enjoy or find intellectually compelling and who contend that particular system or method is the be-all-to-end-all. Usually they become ‘true believers’ of an application because the numbers fool them; they see progression in weights and repetitions in the belief that one day those numbers will translate into more muscle. Months and even years roll by without this happening, but they are convinced that the ‘savior’ (muscle mass) eventually will appear because of dedication in belief. Nonetheless, I suspect those same people will not be reading this book or be swayed by its content (and would not have the intellect to even apply the information contained herein for a few workouts, which would be enough for them and their muscles to stand up and take notice).

5

I have written books and produced instructional DVDs for 20 years, and during that time my direction has evolved from one of generalization (theory and practice that would apply to everyone in the broad sense) to bodybuilding optimization and specialization. My divergence developed for good reason – although I had and always will have interest in general health and strength, my primary focus remains on appearance. Since the age of 12 (with an exercise spring set), and predominantly since the age of 15 (my first cement-filled weight set) I wanted to look good. Well, I wanted to be huge, but that never came about, for both reasons of genetics and avoidance of anabolic steroid use. Nonetheless, my vain pursuit to optimize what my parents gave me became more concentrated throughout the years and even more of an obsession at age 40 when I stumbled upon Zone Training, which allowed me to see and feel what EFFECTIVE bodybuilding could do in very little time. Since then it has become extremely clear that there were differences between improving gym performance and improving the appearance of the body; as stated, nearly any manner of training will affect both elements in a positive way, but it is the direction of training that will emphasize one or the other (never both, as John Grimek pointed out a half-century ago). And that clarity brought to light that any training that improves gym performance without an immediate improvement in appearance will not and cannot improve appearance at some later date... as though the muscles suddenly decide to surrender, admit defeat and become bigger. Hell, simply understanding GAS and SAID would suggest that muscles become more RESILIENT as the days, weeks and months pass and far more compliant to remain as they are. Further, lack of change from all that 'strength' training also indicates clearly that the IMPOSED DEMANDS are not SPECIFIC to induce a hypertrophic ADAPTATION. If they were, then hypertrophy would be happening along with all those wonderful load increases in the gym. Thus, bodybuilding is a different type of demand that must be imposed in order to cause a specific adaptation to occur – an effect that many are not seeing, although claiming "I'm getting great results from my program." In reality, this translates to, "I'm able to use progressively more weight, or I'm able to perform progressively more reps with a weight, while looking the same... while looking as though I'm not a bodybuilder, but some guy who vaguely resembles a person who may exercise (and so long as I don't take my shirt off!)." Limiting ‘gains’ to just load increases in the gym often is not true of those with only a few years of exercise, since just about anything they do is unique enough and challenging enough to cause some hypertrophy – but in the advanced trainee with advanced adaptation, it takes a lot more to get those muscles to keep growing beyond a state in which they feel comfortable.

6

My favorite for lats are overhand chins

I have written several books on the topic of hypertrophy and methods to stimulate physical change, from Apex and the Blitz Cycling concept, to the Zone Training trilogy, to the more recent Variation book/DVD set (and the importance of constant change), and finally to this current work. It is my attempt not to repeat myself too much in this book with what has been stated in previous books, although some minor overlap is inevitable. Rather, some of the points raised will be reinforcement to support the bodybuilding philosophy, as well as practical training methods and directions to make your muscles wake up and take notice.

I cannot fathom that the information contained in these pages work solely for myself, and so if applied correctly and in accordance to my direction I can say with confidence that your muscles will look more peaked and developed as you work through the recommendations. What I ask is that you read over the book before delving too seriously. It's important to understand the ideas and protocols I propose (which I have applied through trial and error) before going all Helter Skelter with enthusiasm. Yes, eventually you will need to discover what works best for you, which means taking some advice while leaving other ideas on the backburner, but achieve what you can on the same journey before marking your own path. Getting to know the directions I propose will help in understanding this book's contents better and help steer you toward a new world of exploration that will change your bodybuilding direction for good!

7

1. Bodybuilding and NOT Weight Lifting Adaptation and Specificity in Training Regularly, and I suspect nearly every day, there are people on fitness forums talking about how much they like their programs because of their RESULTS. This is very open-ended since these same people do not quantify or qualify what 'results' they are referring to or what they are. For instance, a person can eat well, exercise and have his or her cholesterol or blood pressure levels drop, and that's a good result. Another person may feel more functional by being able to perform or sustain performance longer in household and yard-work chores; again, that's a good result. However, most people who frequent fitness forums tend to focus on more particular results, that being strength increases or appearance (muscle development). Let's look at each of these. Nearly every one of us got into weight training because we know (it has been established by photographic evidence since the time of Eugene Sandow) that lifting loads that impose some form of challenge on the muscles will increase their function and development. An increase in function or strength (viz., the ability to produce or resist force) can come about in a number of ways, the two most obvious being through muscle hypertrophy and NEUROmuscular changes. The first instance should be obvious, that a larger muscle, with a greater cross-section, will produce more force: therefore, a larger muscle is a stronger muscle. This is not to suggest that if a muscle is 50% larger that it will be 50% larger, or some other equal measure. In fact, a muscle can become larger and not increase in strength all that much – simply because a person can apply a challenging application using common loads and cause a hypertrophic adaptation. But it should be obvious that if a person has a 14-inch arm and develops it to a 15-inch arm, then that arm is more functional or stronger when tested directly (a larger arm may not make a particular athlete more functional in a sport, because the larger arm may not required to be better in that sport, but the point should be obvious). The second instance if far more complex. How many reading this has experienced an increase in loads lifted without any change in body development? The number is (drum roll please)… each and every one of us! This can be frustrating if one's focus is bodybuilding, because the goal is to achieve the largest muscles possible (whether or not trying to maintain proportion and symmetry), and busting your butt week-in-and-week-out to see no change, but while the loads increase is not unusual. There is a reason for this, and I'll get to it in a moment, but 'bodybuilders' will rationalize what is happening, and it usually follows one of two thought processes:

8

1. If I keep adding a little bit of weight on the bar/machine here and there, while pushing the limits... eventually... my muscles will get larger (this is the gambler's fallacy that eventually... one day... something great will happen and you will hit the jackpot). 2. I will have to see at least a 30% (insert whatever number you want) increase in strength (viz., lifting ability) to realize a change or increase in muscle. OK, there's a lot going on in the above two points, which I'll address. If a program is effective to cause an increase in muscle size, or effective to optimize a peaked look in the muscles (for those at a genetic limit or getting too old to build much more muscle, like me), then productivity of a program is noticeable and effective from the very first workout – and results are forthcoming immediately. In fact, the longer you look the same, the more obvious it should be that the body has adapted to the nature of the program and there is no reason for the muscles to increase in size; such is an indication that the program is not working insofar as stimulating hypertrophy, although it ‘may’ be enough (for a while) to sustain hypertrophy and appearance. Next, it is amazing how many times I see number values, such as having to increase loads lifted by 30%, 40% or whatever for it to be 'enough' to stimulate a change in hypertrophy. Often this is an excuse for lack of hypertrophy coming from a program, since it could be months or even years before a 30% (or whatever) increase occurs – this buys the person time to bullshit himself. Nonetheless, two factors are not considered in such an argument: 1) Why is it that beginner and intermediate weight trainees require far less of an increase in lifting ability to stimulate change... and that muscular change is far more regular and easier to come by for those individuals? Well, at those stages a person certainly is further from his or her genetic potential, which makes change easier to experience – but also, the strain of exercise is more ‘foreign,’ which makes adaptation (change) more pronounced. In this regard, just about every newbie to weight training will experiment with every program or method under the Sun in the hopes of getting big muscles, and that constant variation serves well to keep muscles on edge. For whatever reason, as years go by, we become complacent in our programs and believe that hammering the same exercises in the same manner, with the same volume and frequency is the key to unlock the pot of gold. 2) It is interesting that some people have exact figures for gym improvement (e.g., a 30% increase in the weight lifted will cause an increase in hypertrophy), and yet they never have an exact figure or number that represents how much hypertrophy can be expected from that increase. However, it's more ludicrous than that. First off, I have experienced a 30% or more increase in some exercises without any change in hypertrophy (whenever I did experience an increase in muscle it was because of a change beyond adding some weight to the bar, such as new exercises, new pieces of equipment and more particularly new methods or applications of lifting those weights). The other point that should make this seem nothing short of stupid is that the weights keep going up with no change in the muscles' size, then suddenly they are supposed to sprout bigger 9

just because the weight is NOW 30%, 40%, etc., heavier? And so, the day you achieve that 30% mark, then 'BAM!?' Is that how it works? And so, why is it that a regular increase in load (apart from beginner weight trainee experiences) does not translate into more muscle? This I have detailed a number of times in other books, and so I will keep it somewhat brief and to the point. The body adapts in a number of ways, and increasing muscle mass is only one of those ways... it is the least preferred way since more muscle is metabolically more expensive then adapting by other means – more muscle requires more energy and system reserves to sustain, which makes it less desirable and a highly forced situation (you cannot ask muscle nicely to increase in size, you have to FORCE it). Sure, we need muscles in order to move and survive, but we do not need large muscles or muscles beyond those required for daily activities. In order to increase muscle mass (and to sustain added muscle over the years), you better give the body a very good reason for doing so. That point is vital to understand; just because you increased your arms to 15-inches does not mean you will keep them that size merely because you train hard in the gym – the body will strive to find other ways to cope with the strain of exercise in order to reduce muscle size – to be as efficient and effective with less metabolically-expensive bulk. This is why when a person undertakes a new training program and tries new challenges muscles often perk up and peak out (they may or may not get larger, but they fill out better and look different); I'll address that point later. And so, how is the body adapting if it's not by way of larger muscles? How is a person able to increase in function or lifting ability without achieving larger muscles? The primary cause is the relationship between the nervous and muscular systems, and these are the main points to consider (you will have to research this if need be, as I've already done so and offered a lot more detail in other writings, which I will not belabor here1): 1)

The nervous system is plastic and it can change and become more efficient in order to cope with the neuromuscular communication that drives movement. I'm talking about the brain and spinal column, improvements in rate coding, etc. It has the ability to reroute messaging pathways to the muscles in order to adapt to new levels or types of strain. Improvement in this area is like having an enhanced electrical system installed in your home.

2) The body learns to coordinate in order to accomplish tasks, such as lifting a barbell – this is known as 'adaptive coordination.' It goes beyond the learning of a skill (whether lifting a barbell or learning to play a musical instrument), but optimizes that skill in order to become more proficient in muscle fiber recruitment and to maximize leverage all the way down to the actin and myosin cross-bridge level. Observing 'natural' powerlifters should make it obvious that a lot more weight can be lifted without any change in 1

Energetics of Human Activity, by W.A. Sparrow is one of the best books I have read on the subject, although there may be more updated editions dealing with neuromechanics since my initial research.

10

hypertrophy; that many of them do not increase in muscle size, but can increase lifting ability significantly through regular practice of the same gross motor skills. Understand that the ability for muscles to coordinate, even on the cellular level, is astonishing, and that ability improves over the years as you continually practice doing the same things in the same manner. 3) Beyond body coordination, there can be changes in the extent to which muscles participate. Consider a leg extension exercise, which I have investigated with EMG (my study was published through the American Society of Exercise Physiologists). Strap yourself in, arms relaxed by your sides (do not hang onto the grips) with the remainder of the body as relaxed as possible, and you will perform a set for a certain number of repetitions and with a certain load (although I did isometric testing at various points throughout the ROM). Let's suppose that the weight is 200-pounds and you achieved 10 repetitions to failure. A week later (when recovered and fresh) if you were to hang onto the grips and squeeze/tense every muscle in the body to the maximum, guaranteed you will use more than 200-pounds for those 10 repetitions. Why? The body produces 'stored energy' to increase torque in lifting ability (which obviously is known as 'stored energy torque'); thus, the more relaxed you make non-targeted muscles, the harder the movement with a particular weight; conversely, the more tense you make outlying muscles, the easier the movement with that same weight. The targeted muscles (in this instance, the quadriceps) are not working harder, nor are they directly responsible for lifting more weight. The energy produced in the outlying muscles transfer through the body and makes the movement easier. We experience this every day when moving heavy items – we prep the mind for the action and tense a lot of muscles before moving furniture, heavy boxes, etc. Athletes in various sports learn how to coordinate the body and transfer energy in order to make movement easier and more proficient, while producing greater power. Muscle fibers literally can transfer tension from one area of a muscle to another, and this coordinates among all the muscles used in a particular lift. And the more you keep repeating the same movement pattern, the more conditioned and accustomed the body becomes to that movement pattern (which is why I find Zone Training, stutters and various patterns the muscles are not used to so effective for bodybuilding purposes).

11

If you take the three above points into consideration, something should be obvious: the more muscles involved, the harder you flex the outlying or non-targeted muscles and the more freedom of movement allowed, then the greater the potential to increase loads. In regard to that last point, the barbell wrist curl (with forearms resting across a bench) is a very direct, specific and isolated exercise. A bit of cheating can occur, but not much and not as you approach muscular fatigue.2 Consequently, reaching a peak in loads lifted occur rapidly for this exercise (and for the forearms). Next, consider the squat or deadlift, either of which involves a lot of muscle groups and even progressive changes in muscle positioning as fatigue sets in, e.g., less upright positioning and more leaning forward. This is where we see significant weight increases and because of the potential to alter positioning among so many muscles. Now, if you consider machine vs. free-weights, such as leg press vs. squat, you can see how restricted the leg press is in comparison and why poundages increase more for the squat and over the course of a lifting career. OK, now we come full circle in this argument by taking into account the SAID Principle – the body ADAPTS SPECIFICALLY to the DEMANDS IMPOSED on it (viz., Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands). Most weight trainees do not consider the vastness of this concept. They think that so long as they progress in the loads lifted that muscles will adapt by becoming larger. What I have explained thus far should give some pause for consideration in that regard. But let's look at the SAID Principle from a few angles. 1. Generally speaking, if the demands imposed on the muscles are based on gym performance, i.e., how much can be lifted for a particular number of repetitions, then that aspect is what will optimize – not muscle mass, but gym performance. There is a reason bodybuilders are not as strong as they look; bodybuilding application is not one of strength (lifting) improvements in the gym, but methods that integrate SUFFICIENT LOAD with SUFFICIENT FATIGUE. In a sense, it's an integration of muscular endurance training AND strength training (I'll address that in the next section) that takes into account not only how much is being loaded on the muscles, but how the load is used and within the context of workout volume and frequency. But it's more complex, since overall training demands need to be cycled or inter-changed over time – after all, if you keep doing the same things over and over, you will keep having the same body. If you are able to tolerate a certain amount of exercise long-term, there will be no need for the muscles to alter their architecture or size simply because it is tolerable.

2

Think about the wrist curl exercise – eventually, and very quickly, you hit a peak in how much weight can be lifted for a determined number of repetitions. Consequently, if you want better forearm development, but you can’t lift any more weight, how do you achieve better development? The answer must be in challenging the forearms by other means, such as more sets, more frequency, a different rep count or a different manner in which to perform the exercise. Keep this in mind when addressing any body part and any exercise that eventually must experience a limit in how much weight is being lifted or can be lifted. Certainly you will not keep increasing sets, reps or frequency, but there will be a need to up-cycle and down-cycle demands in order to achieve your eventual genetic muscular potential (up-cycle to better challenge and down-cycle in order to recover from the up-cycling).

12

2. Muscles can adapt to exercise by becoming larger, but understand what 'adaptation' means – it is a condition that prevents further change! If muscles adapt by becoming larger, then that means they have ADAPTED to the environment in which you imposed upon them; the muscles have become USED TO that environment and the hypertrophy change is a means to prevent further change. Hypertrophy is a means to resist further change, and if you think merely adding a bit of weight to an exercise will cause further change, then you're in for disappointment. And even a 30% increase in the load (how long will that take!!?) is no guarantee of more hypertrophy as the body ADAPTS to those regular increases in load by way of NEUROmuscular changes, such as adaptive coordination, plastic changes in the brain and spinal column and unconscious learned ability to apply stored energy torque.

General vs. Specific Strength Improvement I want to take another look at ‘gains’ people are making in the gym and the idea of developing strength as a means to an end… viz., work for the strength and hopes of larger muscles sometime down the line. I vary my workouts considerably, often doing something different each time, or repeating a workout (that I like) a few times before abandoning it and perhaps revisiting it only weeks or months later. I’m often asked, “If you don’t record your weights and if you keep changing the program, how do you know you are getting stronger?” I will answer this in a few ways. For one, I don’t care if I’m getting stronger (and I do record some weights when I’m doing a fixed pattern on an exercise, as opposed to free-styling) since my main focus is on how I look, since I body build. Second, how would anyone know if I’m not getting stronger? And this is what I want to explore. Years ago, in my mid-20s I used to do deep barbell squats with 300-pounds, and I did that for 17 regular repetitions (I could have made 20, but I wanted to leave a bit of reserve that particular workout). Thereafter I was unable to barbell squat due to a painful mid-back spasm that developed from trying to keep the spine arched (so that I would not round the back [flex the spine] and get hurt). Since then I have done primarily leg presses and eventually purchased a Frank Zane Leg Blaster, which was a god-send since I prefer squats and lunges as my main leg developer. I have a Smith machine, but avoided it since it is not as comfortable as the Leg Blaster, and so why bother using the Smith for squats? The weights on the Leg Blaster varied, but I did work upward of 365-pounds for reps (250-pounds on the 25-pound Blaster harness and a 90-pound weighted vest that I wore); at that weight I did nothing more than straight reps, whereas 250-pounds total or lighter on the Leg Blaster alone was more than sufficient and appropriate when doing Zone Training. OK, flash forward to 2014 and nearly 50 years of age, I decided to give back squats another try, for the sake of doing something different, although using my Smith machine (which I find harder than regular back squats since the movement is more restrictive and upright in posture). After a few warm-ups, and the weight feeling light, I decided on 260-pounds and the Reverse 13

Stutter technique described in this book. I worked the exercise for 90-seconds in that manner… steady with no break or pausing… and did not reach full fatigue. Now, 90-seconds is a longenough time under that weight (and I did not pause between reps to breathe and recover), and I could have done a bit more, which suggests I certainly did not lose strength in the thighs after 20 or so years of not having a heavy barbell on my back. A week later (in mid-December 2014) I used 310-pounds in the Full + Burns Challenge – I completed 8 sequences with a little room to spare. And this brings us to the next point of ‘general’ vs. ‘specific’ strength improvement. Although I may not have done barbell back squats, the Zane Leg Blaster squat is fairly close in application, although with less low back and more direct thigh stimulation (similar to Smith squats, albeit with less low back strain than that exercise as well). I worked both squats and lunges on the Leg Blaster, along with leg presses, leg extensions, and various leg curls. And all these were done in different ways (various Zone applications, full ROM reps included in the mix, the various Challenges outlined in this book, slow reps, stutter reps, different angles, foot placements, etc.), although rarely with simple full ROM reps for a pre-determined number of reps, e.g., 8-12 (I avoided regular full-ROM rep sets for the most part over the past 8-9 years). Now, when you do nothing but a particular exercise in a particular manner, you get good at that exercise and your ability to demonstrate the ability to lift an object (e.g., a barbell) will shine brightest when you execute that exact exercise and in the exact manner as you have been for the previous months or years. But if you were to do a leg exercise that you have never done or have not done for a long time, you would not be as good at that exercise. You still may be able to lift a good amount of weight, but the comparison would not be equal. (Likewise, this is why full-ROM guys get a little freaked out when attempting stutter reps or different Zone Training patterns – these methods are more challenging, they necessitate lighter loads to execute (properly) and the reduced loading is a real threat to the weight lifter ego.) To give an example of what I’m talking about, years ago I performed a few workouts with a young powerlifter, who weighed about 30-pounds lighter than myself… thin, wiry and very lean (he also set Canadian powerlifting records in his weight category for best bench press and squat). There is no way I could come close to his benching ability, although I was larger and more muscular than he was… but I did routinely perform incline dumbbell presses and I could use 70-pound dumbbells (when fresh). He decided to give the incline dumbbell press exercise a try as he never did them before – never used dumbbells and never presses on an incline (always flat with a barbell, as per his sport’s specific requirements). He could not manage the 70-pound dumbbells, but tried the 60-pounders; but those were too heavy as well. He was able to get 8 repetitions with the 50-pounders. Now, when I talk about ‘general’ strength, I mean the capacity to utilize one’s functional ability in everyday instances and not just the ‘specific’ strength demonstration of particular exercises, e.g., how much can you squat for 10 reps, or how many times can you squat 300 pounds, etc. There is good reason why my squatting ability with a barbell did not decrease (at least when I used the Smith machine, which I find more difficult, and with a method more challenging than

14

regular full-ROM reps), and the reason is more in-depth than me training my thighs with a similar exercise (the Zane Leg Blaster). Understand that hard work is required to stimulate a change, to sustain that change and to prevent loss of that improvement. In fact, those are the only three things that can occur with exercise, no matter how productive it is: 1. Improve 2. Maintain 3. Slow any loss Thus, if it is true that hard work (no matter its form) is the general idea behind making gains, and those specific gains are inherent in the specific nature of the stimulus (the SAID Principle), then constant altering of a program will produce more ‘general’ strength than doing the same things over and over, which serve more to optimize ‘specific’ strength. I will say it again and in this manner: Regular change in your gym challenges will produce a more wide-range ability to demonstrate strength in unlike situations, whereas the ‘practice makes perfect’ gym challenge of doing the same things repeatedly will produce a more narrow-range ability to demonstrate strength in unlike situations. Strength is the result of a number of things, including more muscle mass, which is something we can see. What we cannot see is the communication behind the nervous system and the muscular system that I explained on pages 3-4, and which improves over time and as the body adapts to those specific demands. Most trainees take for granted their abilities in hoisting the weights and question “just how much skill can develop from a simple exercise like a leg press?” Actually, a lot, most of which cannot be felt (unlike reduced shakiness of a beginner trying to coordinate dumbbells), but is an internal and silent communication you don’t even notice as your focus redirects toward training hard and often just the lifting of a weight, e.g., move it from point A to point B. Increased efficiency and coordination of the fingers of a musician (guitarists or pianist) can take at least ten years, sometimes longer to optimize, to the point whereby the person can be considered proficient (and not necessarily a virtuoso). And so, consider the detailed internal skill development taking place throughout the entire body of someone working all the major muscles and having all those muscles coordinate and increase in efficiency and proficiency as a whole (and as a means of adaptation to PREVENT more muscle development). Once we move away from the ‘practice makes perfect’ dilemma, we have the solution: The less specific you make your training3, the more CHALLENGING it is on the muscles and on the nervous system; and the HARDER THE WORK! As soon as you try a new exercise, a new machine, working with a barbell when you are used to dumbbells or pulleys, attempting Zone 3

I’m not talking about hypertrophy specific vs. strength specific, but multiple angles and many different exercises over the course of your workouts vs. very few exercises at the same angles.

15

Training, or stutter reps, or slow reps, or altering hand and foot angles/placements, you then place a new CHALLENGE on the muscles and this makes the work feel HARDER. It’s a simple as that. Certainly you need enough weight to make any application feel hard enough, but a person can experience harder work with the same weight merely by working the muscles differently, viz., it’s not how much weight you use, but how you use it. One HIT ‘expert’ understands adaptation and the idea of muscle challenge incorrectly; and in fact most HITers follow his philosophy: “I tell new clients that as they become better at performing the exercises their workouts will become more challenging, and to expect them to be very hard.” Becoming better at performance should tell you something about neuromuscular coordination/efficiency and the FACT that exercise is not more challenging on the muscles, but is becoming more accommodating because of its routine nature. What is becoming hard is the mental aspect, of having to push for the same number of reps with more weight or more reps with the same weight… that mental disdain for workouts because of the psychological pressure to improve in weight LIFTING when you know or feel as though you’re already at your limits. The conundrum in all this is that you can lose muscle fullness or that peaked look by doing the same things repeatedly, even if the weights slowly increase. This confuses a lot of a trainees since they equate being able to lift more weight with improvement of the physique (and eventual muscle gain). But as the body becomes more conditioned to doing the same things, more proficient at lifting in the same manner with the same exercises, the challenge imposed on the muscles to ‘force’ them to grow or remain peaked in appearance reduces. Thus, gym performance increases, but while physical appearance decreases.

Building Muscle with ‘Sufficient’ Stimulus Infrequent training is not a good idea when you are trying to maximize muscular development. ‘Infrequent’ could mean just about any timeline, but where I’m coming from it is the performance of bodybuilding exercise that involves training a muscle ‘about’ once every 10 days or less (with examples out there being once every 14-21 days). No, there is nothing magical about the weekly and monthly calendar construct, that you need to train a muscle once a week with ‘chest day’ being every Monday, etc., but the idea is to stimulate muscle once it has recovered fully from the past training session, plus a few extra days of normalization at its new level of adaptation. If a person trains on a split program, typically (not always) you’re looking at 3-4 workouts for the entire body over the course of seven days, since you need a few days off for systemic recovery, which is different than localized recovery (viz., what muscles were trained and the recovery they need specifically). And if a person trains full-body, then that is 1-2 sessions per week (although HIT in the 1970s meant three full-body sessions per week, which meant training each muscle THREE times per week!). None of this is to suggest that some muscle cannot be developed by training a body part once every 10 days, or every 14 or 21 days (whether for one set to failure, or multiple sets to failure or sub-failure), but that long delay between direct and specific exercise for a body part should 16

be used as a recovery tool from more demanding training (or a time when you need to focus on other things in life) as opposed to an ideal that delivers you toward your full muscular potential. (Do note that the degree to which muscle can be stimulated always will be relative to the individual.) If you take a rank beginner, let's say a 30-year-old male, someone who has not exercised before, then surely even a little bit of hard exercise will go a long way. But as that person adapts and becomes used to the stimulus, a greater challenge must exist for further improvement in hypertrophy. This is where there is a lot of confusion. Many people think that by merely getting more proficient (stronger?) at lifting weights in the gym, and training to the max (to muscular fatigue or beyond) that muscle surely will follow, which is a false conclusion (powerlifters avoid hypertrophy all the time, and as stated before how many reading this have gone months or years increasing loads a bit here and there without any change in hypertrophy?). And then, some trainees have noticed that if they reduce frequency (and possibly volume) that lifting ability (strength?) often does increase – THEREFORE, it would seem logical (to them and at one time to me) that doing so (reducing volume and frequency) is ideal since the weights go up more easily and, THEREFORE, this must be the key (a key) to more muscle. The facts do not support the conclusion, viz., more strain by way of ‘load’ must equal more muscle. It can be an element, and often is an element in different contexts, but simply adding more weight is not the full solution to gaining more muscle. Stimulating hypertrophy is more complex than simply getting more proficient in the gym, since the development and maintenance of more muscle on a person’s frame is a forced condition that the body does not want to sustain – muscle is metabolically expensive, remember? Part of the solution is sufficient training frequency, although what is sufficient for me may not be sufficient for you, and so be aware of that caveat.

And so, why is it that bodybuilding (the pursuit of maximum size and/or a peaked muscle appearance) requires more training volume and frequency than simply getting stronger in the gym and being able to demonstrate that strength (and an improvement thereof)? Although the body does work as a single unit, in that different adaptations merge or coordinate, it must be understood that various 'systems' in the body have varying rates of deterioration. This is not something I've made up, but which has been known for decades and is governed by the SAID Principle – Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands, viz., if you want your adaptation to be specific (directed toward) hypertrophy, then you must impose the proper demands, which means sufficient frequency and volume (and the nature of the application) must be appropriate or specific and, of course, those factors must coordinate with one’s intensity of effort and proper or effective loading. Let’s consider those systems: The cardiovascular and respiratory systems de-condition faster than one's muscular endurance, faster than the ability to sustain muscle mass, and even faster than the ability to sustain optimum muscle strength. This is why endurance trainees need to train more often to sustain a high level of conditioning, e.g., triathletes and long-distance runners. Certainly they are as dependent on muscle endurance as cardio-respiratory conditioning specific to their sports, but with a high frequency of cardio-respiratory training, that aspect gets stimulated sufficiently. These athletes also need 'sufficient' muscle mass and strength to complete their respected 17

sports, but to a far less extent than cardio-respiratory and endurance factors (which is why they do not walk around with very large and very strong muscles – they do not require them, large muscles would hamper their function, and cardio-endurance training is non-SPECIFIC to optimizing muscle size and strength in any case. A high level of muscular endurance (which coincides with a well-conditioned cardio-respiratory system) also deteriorates more quickly than the ability to sustain optimum muscle mass and strength, and so this aspect needs to be worked often, but not as often as optimizing the cardio-respiratory system. (NOTE: how 'much' either needs to be trained not only is subjective and relative to the individual, but also the demands of the sport or activity in question.) Before addressing hypertrophy and strength requirements, consider that the intensity of effort when dealing with high levels of cardio-respiratory or muscular endurance is not very high; rather it is moderate and steady with the odd sprint or higher demands integrated and when required, e.g., picking up speed to go up a hill or to cross a finish line. This should make sense, since if optimizing the cardiorespiratory or muscular endurance components require sufficient volume and frequency (whatever their measures), then intensity-of-effort must be regulated cautiously and be more steady-state rather than all-out.

Next, the effects from muscle hypertrophy training will last longer than the effects from cardioendurance-type training. Although there is less volume and frequency involved in hypertrophy training, the intensity-of-effort and loading increase to balance out the overall demands; thus, hypertrophy-based training needs to regulate the volume and frequency more cautiously because of an increase in intensity-of-effort and loading. Moreover, to optimize muscle size and appearance, there is more to bodybuilding than merely lifting weights (which is how most people train and is part of the reason why not everyone has that bodybuilding look even when they want to achieve that look). There are mechanical and tissue considerations involved in this manner of training and bodybuilders look the way they do (peaked muscle appearance) because of the applications necessary to achieve it (which is the basis of this book). But the fact remains (to play a broken record) that building and maintaining that maxed-out muscle size and appearance is both metabolically expensive and a forced conditioned, which require 'sufficient' frequency AND specific strategy to sustain once developed. Finally, strength effects last the longest, since the capacity to 'demonstrate' one's lifting ability, whether in the gym or not, is based on skill, coordinated adaptation (the ability for the muscles to work harmoniously for optimum force output), leverage, etc. Because being good at a particular lift, e.g., squat or bench press, is a learned trait that becomes ingrained within the neuromuscular system, it does not have to be trained as often in order to sustain that ability (it takes longer to detrain or unlearn since it has been practiced so much and the movement patterns are set deep within the mind and muscles). As the saying goes, 'practice makes perfect,' ... and with years of regular practice of particular movements, a person does not have to train as often in order to improve or sustain the ability to lift weights in regularly practiced movements, to lift near-max weight or to be 'good' at lifting weights.

18

Now, what can be understood from the above? A person who focuses on how much can be lifted for 'x' number of reps, and who pushes the neuromuscular system to the limits in order to optimize a weight lifting experience will need to or can train less often to improve lifting ability. But this will not see an optimal effect for hypertrophy purposes, which requires more frequent training and more set volume with a different approach. That is why a person who focuses on routine lifting practices (doing the same things repeatedly) with maximum-effort and limited volume directive also will produce the least amount of hypertrophy (with all things being equal) than what is possible when compared to a higher level of variation (different and unique challenges) and 'sufficient' (that amount varies among individuals or muscles) volume and frequency. Yes, there needs to be enough effort, and there is no way a person cannot or will not reach failure in some sets or workouts here and there (it's impossible if you expect a human with finite strength to push muscles to the limit in different ways), but a well-thought out strategy in this regard works a lot better than ‘busting a nut’ every workout on the same limited number of exercises. That type of training will produce a lot of improvement in lifting ability of those exercises, and very limited hypertrophy changes (after all, why increase in hypertrophy when neuromuscular coordination and other 'skill' factors can handle, accommodate and adapt to the imposed strain?). Bear in mind, and I stated this in the introduction, I am not anti-HIT, and in fact I made some excellent progress (to a point) on various HIT-based routines and ideas. And perhaps it’s my age and advanced physical status (35 years weight training) that makes me more ‘sensitive’ to all-out training all the time with the amount of muscle I do have. But I have learned about a decade ago that as you age and as you develop more muscle, training to failure is a trump card you learn to play when the time is right and when necessary or ideal to the conditions of your strategy4. For BODYBUILDING purposes, the idea is to achieve a high level of fatigue in short order, but without pushing the recovery system so much that you require extended recovery (rest days) between workouts. Remember that BODYBUILDING is about achieving as much workout density (sets and reps) along with sufficient frequency to optimize muscle development and peak appearance, both of which are hampered if training becomes too infrequent and overall workout density too little because of reaching muscular fatigue too often among the sets or too early within the workout for a body part. Obviously some set extenders, like negatives and forced reps, must be used cautiously and periodically at most to add ‘shock’ to one’s training, rather than being a regular occurrence, since such variables push muscles beyond muscular fatigue. 4

Often, although not always, when I implement a new method or challenge on my muscles I will avoid training to failure. I focus more on the experience of what is happening and that my muscles work ‘hard enough’ while keeping the experience under mental and physical control. Within 2-3 workouts, which is how long I typically keep a method running consecutively I increase my loading and intensity-of-effort, to the point that I reach muscular fatigue at some point(s) in a workout. In effect, this is a way of ramping up the overall demands, or up-cycling in short bursts, which not only is more tolerable on the system, but provides opportunity to optimize a method by way of loading and intensity.

19

A point I want to raise at this juncture is the issue of muscular development and training to muscular fatigue. It should be obvious that it is easier for men, even older than me, to train allout-all-the-time if they are not very muscular since there are fewer metabolic demands with less muscular individuals. The larger a muscle, the bigger the contraction and the more energy required to fuel and sustain that contraction; and the more profound (draining with longer recovery requirements) necessary between workouts. Although this has made sense to me for a few decades, it was not until coaching a 250-pound bodybuilder that it became apparent. Very large bodybuilders, often large because of drug use along with genetics, necessitate short sets stacked in a cluster to achieve best results. They find it difficult to perform 60+ second sets, or training to-failure too often (unless the overall volume is low). When you read of bodybuilders performing 20 sets for biceps, it’s really not all that extreme since each set likely does not exceed 20-30 seconds and few of those sets are pushed to the limits. It’s the HIT crowd that decided 20 sets constituted gross overtraining since they often moved slowly (compared to the rhythmic pumping of bodybuilders), had sets reach 60+ seconds, and trained to failure on every set (and sometimes beyond with forced, negative or static hold reps). If those 20 sets were performed in the manner that HIT enthusiasts contend training should be applied, then certainly none of those bodybuilders, even on drugs with great genetics, would cope for long. But since bodybuilding requires more training density/cumulative fatigue, and frequency than what is required to simply increase lifting ability (strength), pushing the envelope too often overall or too much within a workout has a limiting effect on what can be done and how often it can be done.

And it is not rational to point fingers at the likes of the Mentzer brothers or Dorian Yates 5 as proof of world-class bodybuilders being as successful as those who do higher volume training: 1) Drug use makes such a difference in recovery ability and growth enhancement that they merely level the playing ground and obscure reasonable thinking on the matter. 2) We cannot account for genetic potential of any professional bodybuilder, and some people can make gains in spite of their training (and anyone who is a world-class bodybuilder is not suffering from inferior genetic potential to build muscle or to have superior receptor sites to accept drugs). If a person can be successful in spite of highervolume, lower-intensity bodybuilding, then the same argument can be made for any minor successes among those who incorporate lower-volume, higher-intensity bodybuilding… right? 3) Although overall training volume and frequency are more subdued among bodybuilders today than it was 30-40 years ago (they likely took a lesson from the Mentzer brothers and Yates, in that a person may not need quite as much training stimulus as suspected), overall the current suggested demands in most magazines still are too much for the average person reading this book and wanting to develop his or her best body naturally; 5

I would say that having seen the Mentzers train on video, I was impressed with their form and they did seem to train to failure with quality effort. Yates, on the other hand, had a lot more ‘English’ in his mechanics, which involved sufficient cheating or a rather loose style that is not as exhausting on the system when reaching failure as one would think (not as tiring as training very strict and in a slow manner for 60+ second sets); but his sloppiness did produce some torn muscles that helped to end his competitive career.

20

certainly those magazine recommendations have to be toned down and relative to an individual’s needs, abilities and tolerances. In regard to the last point, none of my recommendations require training a body part more than once every seven days (unless you want to increase or decrease demands for short bursts within your strategy), nor taking more than 10-12 minutes to train a body part. But if you apply my recommendations in my previous books or in this one, you will experience a BODYBUILDING effect that is far different than simply lifting weights and monitoring gym performance improvement by writing down your weights and reps in a training journal.

It is the application of the Challenges in this book (and others you create with some thought and improvisation) and your strategy overall that makes the difference in HOW you lift weights and the structure of the elements (sets, frequency, intensity). The idea of 'strategy' is so individualized, relative and even obscure that I cannot provide clear instances that could apply to you specifically, although later I will outline some ideas that have worked well for me. But let’s see what happens when you do not have a changing or evolving strategy. Suppose you performed two sets for a muscle group every 7 days (in fact, the number of sets and frequency does not matter, only that you keep doing the same things over and over), and after a few months of training you don't see any difference in that particular muscle. It is a very safe bet that you will NOT see any change in that muscle based on what you are doing now. If you are not seeing results NOW from what you are doing, you will not weeks or months later. Results do not happen magically, one day, just because you work hard and are persistent. Such does not happen in business, politics and certainly not weight training, whereas the conditions must be right for such to happen. As one person routinely states on an exercise forum: "You just need to stick with it; Mike Mentzer explained that over time the cumulative strength increases always gave way to a size increase. Arthur Jones also made this correlation. A lot of athletes get caught up trying to build muscle right away and see the results, but it takes time. Only thing you see right away is swelling and edema from inflammation." There are several holes (bullshit) in this reasoning. First, he follows the gambler's fallacy, that one day his muscles suddenly will become larger. However, in order to survive a strain, a muscle will respond immediately to an effective program and become larger (or look peaked for those who have reached a genetic limit in size). Do you go out in the Sun for weeks on end and then suddenly tan? Do you bleed after days or weeks from cutting your skin with a knife? An effect from exercise is no different, in that a response occurs immediately to a strain, and the value of that strain will be experienced days upon recovery of the last workout. Think about it – the next time you lift weights you must think or know (or presume) that you are RECOVERED, so that you can train again, right? If you are recovered, then that means you have adapted and are ready for more. If you have adapted, then the muscles will contain whatever adaptation elements/components it has achieved from the workout, whether it's an increase in strength or an increase in muscle. It does not take months or years for this to occur suddenly.

21

Next, regardless of what Mike Mentzer has stated (Arthur Jones actually said that a larger muscle is a stronger muscle and NOT more muscle follows strength increases), size does not always follow the ability to lift more weights – otherwise, powerlifters and Olympic lifters would be far more muscular than bodybuilders (the latter of which are weaker than they appear based on hypertrophy training applications using moderate weights and high muscle congestion – high-density training). Next, when the writer claimed “A lot of athletes get caught up trying to build muscle right away and see the results, but it takes time,” I'm uncertain who these people are, who are "caught up in trying to build muscle right away," but a few things should be addressed on this point. When a person first gets into weight training there is a learning curve, viz., there will be more improvement in skill and learning to lift weights than there will be in developing muscle. Remember, not only is building muscle metabolically expensive (something the body does not want to do), but the effectiveness of a beginner lifting weights is not very imposing on the muscles initially. After a few months, sometimes less (depending on the quality of training), both strength and muscle mass improve in a somewhat rank beginner – it is fairly immediate, although the extent of which typically is limited in most people (we have become too conditioned to the steroid user image/body in magazines and in Hollywood movies). When it comes to the advanced trainee, a factor that must be considered is when the focus is on how much is being lifted and not the overall strategy of how loads are used. Fundamentally, the more advanced a trainee becomes, which also means the older he becomes, the less likely more weight can be added to an exercise. Even within a few years (presuming we are dealing with an adult and not a youth), a person will max out on loads lifted in a calf raise, wrist curl, and many arm exercises (due to their isolated and very specific nature). There is more leeway for slight improvement in many back and chest exercises since there are more muscles involved – and exercises like the deadlift and squat can continue for some time because of both the number of muscles involved and the potential for position shifting/cheating/alignment changes of the joints and muscles. But if it takes at least a 20% or 30% increase in strength to realize improvements in hypertrophy (as some believe), then it becomes increasingly unlikely that someone with two or more years of dedicated and serious training will experience any hypertrophy thereafter since the weights already are nearing peak levels or are there now. And so... how will the advanced trainee improve? The answer is strategy and application, which means cycling exercise demands and integrating new methods. I know I keep harping on ‘strategy,’ but the information in this book will clarify the direction. In the past I did limit my progression based solely on loads and the result was strain-type injuries and a lot of frustration in looking the same or even worse. I had to consider it from a different perspective that remained ‘kind’ to the body and yet would allow me to improve (not always hypertrophy, but the overall shape and fullness of the muscles, which are two different things). What I found fascinating was how I could increase muscle mass and my overall appearance by using the same loads and even lighter loads than I used when at my lifting peak – that the muscles could be challenged in ways that did not focus on how much I was lifting.

22

Don’t get me wrong, when I use a method that I like, whether I use it for several consecutive workouts or ‘now-and-again,’ I attempt to increase the weights and/or repetitions when permissible, but doing so is not my focus, but a possibility within the program structure. Rather, I direct my efforts toward new and unique challenges while the amount of weight I use is complementary or an addendum to the overall prescription. And then there is the issue of edema and inflammation – a temporary condition experienced by ANY style of exercise (whether bodybuilding with a lot of training variation or a very routine program doing the same things repeatedly while focusing on how much can be lifted for 'x' reps), since edema and inflammation are responses to physical strain in general and is not the sole condition of 'bodybuilding' style of exercise. But consider this: the greater the demands on a muscle, the greater the level of edema and inflammation, which should suggest a SUPERIOR stimulus and something to be heeded (desired) in the pursuit of optimizing muscle mass. You do not produce higher levels of edema and inflammation by easier or less effective exercise, but from a strain that is more profound and which produce a greater stress response. And if tolerable, then that greater stress response is capable of producing more muscle (if the body is ready for it). As a side, albeit related note, success and failure depend on each other. You cannot know success (or 'how' successful something is) without a comparison to what a failure is. Likewise, you know what failure is based on what a success might be, can be or 'is.' The same is true of good vs. evil – one exists because the other exists and there is a comparison that can be made. I know when a training method is a failure (or not that good) based on what I did in the past that I consider a success. And so, when I can produce a surge of growth and my muscles stand out more boldly from only 1-2 workouts, it tells me two things: 1. That particular method is very good (when compared to something that produces no visual change, whether short- or long-term); and 2. It is possible and EXPECTED to produce a result very quickly if the method is good (which then tells me that if a method is good, it doesn't take weeks or months for something to happen eventually... and that if the method is good the results MUST be immediate as the body must adapt in order to survive). The law of cause-andeffect dictates scientifically that an effect will follow a cause immediately and not store up for release ‘one day.’

23

Protein Turnover Although information in biochemistry has ranged from highly accurate to highly dubious over the past few decades, in that you can find research that suggests ‘A,’ whereas other research suggests B,’ there appears to be sufficient evidence to suggest ‘enough’ training frequency through a bodybuilding ‘style’ of training has a superior effect on protein degradation and synthesis to support the development of more muscle mass than undertaking a highly intense and less frequent style of training. In other words, directing your training toward higherdensity and more frequent training produces a different and superior effect 6 than simply lifting heavy weights with a group of exercises while focusing on load improvements and pushing the limits of muscular failure. I want to cover a number of points on this matter. First, do note that protein synthesis and degradation are coordinately regulated by signaling pathways that are influenced by mechanical stress or physical activity, viz., protein turnover directly reflects the regulation of muscle mass and fiber size. Thus, if activity stimulates protein turnover, it only makes sense that the less one trains, the less often the body will produce that signal.7 And, doing progressively less activity to optimize strength or lifting ability (to see further lifting improvement in the gym) would have a negative effect on bodybuilding or muscle hypertrophy optimization. As an extreme example, consider a person wasting away from lack of activity8, and then consider the effects that insufficient activity (volume and frequency) can have on optimizing muscle hypertrophy… to realize one’s potential. Lack of activity in any measure (whether bed-ridden or not doing enough to stimulate change) follow the same chemical/hormonal and loading/unloading stimulus pathways. Thus, when you try to push exercise demands, by way of up-regulating effort, volume, frequency, or set variables the hormonal stimulus will cause greater protein degradation and eventual synthesis. But this cannot continue over the long-term, thus necessitating you implement ‘enough’ demands to sustain that peaked look in muscles, but without pushing them to the limits all the time (which results in over-training). At the same time, downregulating exercise demands too much for too long (complete layoffs are not ‘evil,’ but they should be only long enough for recovery’s sake) will reduce the need and extent for protein synthesis because of lack of sufficient degradation.

6

Next I will address myofibrilar vs. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Of course, this does not mean that more frequent endurance training is better still, since there is a reduction in effort and loading; there needs to be a balance of all the factors to achieve an optimum muscle-building response. 8 Atrophy is defined as a decrease in the size of a tissue or organ due to cellular shrinkage; the decrease in cell size is caused by the loss of organelles, cytoplasm and proteins that may be the result of lack of nutrients, but also lack of sufficient and regular stimulus to maintain current size. Although somewhat infrequent weight training may produce sufficient stimulus to maintain size or even increase size up to a point, optimizing one’s size potential always will require more frequency than optimizing one’s lifting (gym performance) potential, as previously explained. Thus, when one focuses too much on gym performance and what is required to optimize the ability to lift weights (which relies on less frequency), that direction will take precedence over the direction required to optimize hypertrophy. 7

24

Do you get the relationship? To optimize hypertrophy… to coax muscles to be as large as possible, which means spurts of maximizing protein degradation in order to maximize protein synthesis, is to discover how much stimulus you can tolerate (per workout) and how frequently you can do it, which factors always remain in a state of flux depending on the current demands of exercise, your physical status of recovery and current muscle size (how close you are to your full potential), etc. A second point is that optimization of lifting ability does require longer recovery between workouts, because of the progressive loading being imposed that disrupts the ability to practice the skill of lifting more often. To explain, if you practice a musical instrument, you can do so daily with very few ill effects (although even overuse injuries are common among elite musicians who practice hours a day). If you practice weight lifting movements with sufficient intensity of effort (particularly if training to failure) while always trying to increase the load and/or reps on the same movements, then the over-use of those movement patterns along with the progressive loading will force you to train less frequently in order to recover. 9 This is not good for bodybuilding purposes, in that the ‘lifting of weights’ (particularly with maximum intensity) must reduce in frequency when compared to holding back effort and focusing more on training density. On a related note, although power lifters and Olympic lifters do not have bodybuilding type bodies, they still are able to train more often than those following some forms of ‘all-out’ HIT because of their restraint on maximizing effort (training to failure); but even with more frequency they lack that bodybuilding look because of their style of training, viz., lack of training density with a focus on the lifting of weights. A third point is that growth of myofibrils is dependent on protein turnover and the body’s ability or readiness for growth. When the body is ready and has experienced a sufficient stimulus (not only from weight training, but there has to be sufficient hormones in place, e.g., androgens and B-adrenergic agonists), growth will occur when overall rates of protein synthesis exceed the rates of protein degradation. In other words, you need an ideal environment of both training and body preparedness, along with the recovery component to allow synthesis after degradation. Conversely, and to repeat a vital point, muscle atrophy occurs when protein degradation exceeds synthesis – caused in the weight trainee not only from over-use, but under-use, viz. lack of set and frequency stimulus (again, compare this to atrophy of an aged person who does progressively less activity and you can understand the similarities for atrophy from lack of sufficient training).

9

Understand that it is easier to recover from a different exercise, even if trained as hard and with relative heaviness than it is to recover from the same movement pattern (because of the repeated barrage of the same strain that produces more of a ‘wearing’ effect). This does not make it better for strength optimization with the muscles in question, even if you are able to lift progressively more load in the same exercise, but will make it worse because of its repetitive nature while ignoring strength acquisition of other movement patterns, e.g., different exercises and from different angles.

25

Now, an interesting fourth point is that there is a marked difference of protein turnover rates when comparing slow twitch and fast twitch fibers. Slow twitch fibers show a much higher rate (greater frequency) of protein synthesis and degradation, whether exercise is involved or not (what I mean is, protein turnover is a natural occurrence in the body, but it can be stimulated to become more frequent or to occur to a greater extent with regular weight training exercise and relative to the nature of that exercise, as per the SAID Principle). Consider the following: 1. The average person will have more slow twitch than fast twitch fibers; and 2. Bodybuilding potential will maximize more with moderate to higher rep training (not only for slow twitch, but intermediate fiber types, both of which can tolerate more frequent training). Hence, these two coordinating factors should suggest the average person and a person wanting to optimize bodybuilding potential will thrive on more frequent training, respond better to more frequent training and necessitate more frequent training. Certainly all of this is within individual limits, since ‘more frequent’ is an individual matter and also depends on whether one is up-cycling, down-cycling or sustaining exercise demands. A fifth point is that if you had a brief spurt of growth occur from a program, guaranteed the body will put a halt to this and attempt NOT to grow any further. This is part of the adaptation (and reluctance to change any further) stage, and a good time to maintain with a decent program and not try to push the limits any further. Understand that there is a mechanism in place that prevents further growth once growth has occurred (which corresponds to increased protein synthesis), and trying to keep that metabolic wave going is a sure way to over-train and/or yield disappointment. As to the above point, there are times when you look worse, no matter how effective the training may be. I suspect highly that this is during a significant protein turnover phase, as it always seems short-lived (a few days), and that the degradation of the body’s lean tissue and replacement of new cells during this time is what is making a person look less than he or she is (and was only days previous). Consequently, it is during this time that you can avoid training (viz., take a short layoff) since training, no matter how good, will not matter as to one’s overall appearance or stimulus toward hypertrophy. A sixth point is about nutrition, in that slow twitch fibers are not as sensitive to starvation as fast twitch fibers. Consequently, this may be why mesomorphic (naturally muscular) types tend to want to eat more to ‘stay big,’ whereas most people (whether on the thin side or of average genetics) are not afraid to remain lean enough to show their abs. In essence, the latter group is able to sustain and even build muscle while consuming low to moderate amounts of calories as opposed to their beefier counterparts. This response presumably is related to the different sensitivity of fast vs. slow muscles to corticosteroids (a hormonal that has a muscle-tearingdown effect when the body is not provided sufficient calories), as well as the fact that slow twitch fibers contract more continuously (are more active), which characteristic better opposes the atrophic process.

26

Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy? It has been suggested that bodybuilders look the way they do because they are stimulating more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than other types of lifters.10 There is no evidence that any particular manner of weight training, including high reps vs. low reps, stimulate more or less sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, viz., you cannot selectively train this aspect vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy. In general, simply lifting weights, training hard and trying to progress in different ways (more weight, more reps, different challenges, etc.) will stimulate changes in the body that vary among the population. On the exact program some people will get a lot stronger with far less muscles growth to show for it, whereas others display some strength but a lot more muscle growth relative to the strength changes. And most people will have a good mix of both. This is what separates one person from another – genetics. Although genetics have far greater control IF the same program were utilized among the population, take a more ‘effective’ program relative to the goals of a person, as well as his or her tolerances and a superior effect can be achieved. I’ll get into that soon, but let’s consider the ‘sarcoplasmic hypertrophy’ idea a bit more. So far it is obvious that different people will achieve different results in strength (ability to lift weights) and muscle size; and there is no evidence to suggest that a person can selectively train for sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy. And so, where do people get that idea? The logical conclusion would be the differences in training application, and that is true, viz., bodybuilders look the way they do because of the nature of their training. But the mistake being made is that this idea is limited to repetition number, whereby ‘strength’ athletes train with heavier weights and lower reps and bodybuilders train with lighter weights and higher reps. First, we need to eliminate the concept of ‘selection bias,’ whereby those who are not good at building a lot of muscle, but are very strong will get into powerlifting or Olympic lifting, whereas those who have the propensity to develop muscle easily will get into bodybuilding. First, with or without steroids, I have seen some pretty big ‘strength’ athletes, but they do not have that ‘bodybuilding’ look of peaked-out muscles (they don’t have to be big muscles, but when a person bodybuilds properly, there is more of a 3D look to the body and the muscles always appear more rounded or full). Second, although I achieved some good growth spurts over my 35 years of training, I’m not a big person or a very muscular person; I had to do a lot of experimentation and refocus my training direction repeatedly over time to get what I have, to keep it there and to develop a bodybuilding type physique. Consequently, being a big person does not mean you will look the bodybuilder type, and having average genetics does not preclude you from achieving a bodybuilding type body (albeit a smaller version from what we’re used to seeing in magazines).

10

Bodybuilders still are stimulating myofibrillar hypertrophy, as are other lifters, but with the adjunct of more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy because of their training practices.

27

Now, most or many studies always will compare similar elements, such as the same number of sets and same frequency, but high vs. low repetitions; or the same reps for 1 set vs. 3 sets on the same frequency, or just the frequency will alter, but with the same number of sets and reps. The reason being is that studies want to adjust or alter one element only and while keeping all others the same, to determine the effect of that one element, viz., if you change too many variables, then what (exactly) is accounting for any potential result or change in result? When it comes to rep ranges, yes, there are certain ranges that you discover may affect your quads more and other ranges that affect your arms more. And those ranges may be different than what seems to work best for your training partner or someone else in the gym. Consequently, there is no ideal measure of rep range for everyone or for every muscle on the same person necessarily; and because of this, it is erroneous to suggest that a higher rep range is better for muscle hypertrophy than a lower rep range (whatever those numbers happen to be). As one Internet ‘expert’ suggested, and this seems to be a common trend in thinking: “…you don’t need to train with different repetition ranges for general strength increases or hypertrophy. A variety of repetition ranges can be effective for both. However, depending on your genetics you may respond better to either a lower or higher repetition range.” How many times have you read something along those lines, including just about any bodybuilding book on the market? But we return to the question of what causes that bodybuilding look and the extent of hypertrophy a person can achieve from effective (whatever that means to you) bodybuilding training? The problem I see among a wide gradient is that the ‘experts’ are not taking into account the synergistic effect of the bodybuilding style of training as a whole. In sum, that bodybuilding ‘effect’ or look is not because of particular rep ranges and the myth of sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy, but the overall density and unique challenge imposed on the muscles (as per SAID) by way of bodybuilding style of training. And in order to sustain a high density factor in training, certain things need to be in place: A high(er) number of repetitions per unit of time. OK, I said that higher reps are not necessarily better than lower reps, but if you can achieve more contractions per unit of time (whether working with higher or lower reps), then that is better than fewer contractions per unit of time. But this also means not doing excessively long tension times (e.g., 2-3 minute sets), that the weight still needs to be ‘sufficient, and that the control and quality of movement exists and maintains, viz., no jerking or being sloppy with the weights. A sufficient number of sets per unit of time. The more activity you can cram into a short amount of time, the better… although within limits. First, if you rush too much activity, then you will tax your heart and lungs more than your muscles, and even the amount of weight you use must reduce to in order to maintain a ‘muscular-endurance-type’ pace. It takes some experience and practice in performing a lot of short sets with short rests to get a feel for the right rhythm in training. There are some tricks I use such as matching tension time with rest time (e.g., if a set takes 40-seconds, then rest only 40-seconds before the next set). Another is to keep working a muscle until it feels like the pump has reached a maximum and is not 28

increasing (or actually feels like it is decreasing). An effect that corresponds to this is to continue working a muscle until it feels as though the ability to contract the muscle hard (and its quality of contraction) reduces, as though someone poured cement or Jell-O into the muscle; it essence, the muscle has a lethargic and ‘blobby’ feel to it. Generally, I can achieve that feel within 10-12 minutes at most, and that includes any resting between sets. I also find a lot of short sets (whether with the same or different exercises) have a more profound effect (e.g., inroad, fatigue and pump) than fewer sets performed for longer tension times. I sometimes will perform sets lasting as long as 60-seconds, but often opt for sets lasting 20-40 seconds. All those short sets mean I get more per unit of time while being paced by short rests between. Sufficient loading and intensity of effort. This should be obvious, that you need to train with enough weight and enough effort to make exercise hard enough to stimulate change. The key is to discover how to juggle these two factors with enough sets and those higher-rep pumping sets. If you use too much weight, then you lose the feel of the muscle flexing and working the weight, and it becomes a labor of lifting a weight – and it’s impossible to achieve enough repetitions (almost impossible to work in a piston-like rhythm). Likewise, too much intensity of effort and you become too exhausted to work enough sets in a workout. If you like training to failure, and I do as well, save it for the end of a body part’s workout, or at the end of set sequence/cluster of an exercise for that body part – pace your training and keep building up the fatigue before ending the challenge with a high amount of effort. Going to the limits too quickly will reduce the ability to keep the density high. Yes, high-intensity has its place and it’s inevitable (you will reach failure some of the time, even if you don’t intend to), but the key is high-density with some high-intensity in the mix. Both the amount of weight you use and the intensity of effort are elements within the total bodybuilding mixture, and not the only governing factors in muscle hypertrophy. Sufficient Variation. This has been a repeating aspect in my last few books and DVDs. It amazes me how I can challenge my muscles and keep them looking full and developed without any concern on trying to overload with the weights (over the course of a series of workouts) or without training to failure every time – but simply by changing thing up. Granted, most people lack the creative ingenuity to develop new approaches in training, and for them they not only cannot grasp the need to change a program VERY regularly (to avoid adaptation and staleness), but find it confusing or difficult to do so – and I get that. That is one of my strengths and a reason for developing these books (not only to share ideas with others, but to keep all those ideas straight for my own purposes; I likely have forgotten more than I remember). Suffice it to say, and the broken record keeps playing, understand the nature of adaptation and read up on SAID and GAS. The body adapts by way of having larger muscles, but once it develops larger muscles, it is more RESILIENT to growing larger and will be more RESILIENT to the program that stimulated that growth change. The muscles have ADAPTED and are USED TO that stimulus, and adding a few pounds on the bar or adding a few more reps is not enough to challenge muscles that are highly-adaptable to the general method or application in question. What is required is a new and unique challenge to MAKE THEM adapt to a higher level – and any further hypertrophy means an even greater and diverse level of adaptation.

29

Developing a Strategy of Challenges There are many directions in which to take training, to avoid being too linear and to create progressive challenges aside from adding more weight to a bar or machine stack (which is very finite in its application for the advanced trainee). However, developing a strategy does not have to be a complex endeavor; your direction of ‘unique’ challenges and change in what you are doing, what you have done, and what you could try can be very straight-forward. As a simple example: If you were to choose just one application from this book, such as the 50Rep Challenge (see Chapter 3), you could perform one such challenge for a muscle or muscle group in Week One (or whatever your frequency for a body part). Then, in the second week, add an extra 50-Rep Challenge (two per muscle per workout), then the third week add a third 50-Rep Challenge. At this point, you may find this is your peak in tolerance with your limits being pushed. At this juncture, and moving into Week Four, you can do a number of things: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Select a different method (other than the 50-Rep Challenge). Return to one 50-Rep Challenge and build back up again. Take a week off for added recovery from having reached your peak in tolerance. Take a week off, but also apply points 1 or 2 when returning to the gym.

And then you can be even more eclectic by doing a 50-Rep Challenge for all three weeks, but in weeks 2 and 3 you add a new application, such as the following for the back muscles: Week 1: Pulldowns (50-Rep Challenge) Week 2: Pulldowns (50-Rep Challenge) + Cable Rows (30-15-8) Week 3: Pulldowns (50-Rep Challenge) + Cable Rows (30-15-8) + Dumbbell Shrugs (Light & Heavy Combo)

I mix up a lot of methodologies and never follow any pre-set plan, but decide on the fly what I will do from one workout to the next or from one week to the next. Sometimes I may have more of a plan, although I may not know the outcome (I have a sense that it will be a good outcome, otherwise I would not apply it... an 'educated' guess based on past experiences). I will say this: the more I mix things up, the more responsive and the better my body appears, or at least is able to sustain. Conversely, the more I remain consistent and unchanging, the more my muscles flatten out and lose their detail (those little lumps, bumps and fullness). Some can argue that it's nothing more than edema or inflammation, which is hogwash, since those stress responses certainly could not sustain in all muscles continually from one workout to the next, and for weeks on end. (In any case, I would rather look better with some edema and inflammation than look like those who put down my training and suggest it’s nothing more than edema and inflammation.)

30

During mid-to late-2014 I did the following: 1. I thought up a method, some of which have already existed, but were refined to my liking and to coincide with a bodybuilding approach vs. a strength approach, and then often performed 2-3 different exercises per body part for that week (I never repeated a week). I would record the exercises and briefly describe how well each body part responded to the method, although in this book I detail those I found most effective for any body part and nearly any exercise (for me and my clients at least). 2. In the second week I would apply a different approach, and this continued for week 3, week 4, etc. 3. Eventually you run out of ‘effective’ applications or variations, but I would then apply them to different exercises and in some weeks I would integrate them within the same workout, such as a 50-Rep Challenge on one exercise and the 30-15-8 on another exercise. 4. Into the Fall of 2014, I was planning a trip to Jamaica and for four weeks leading up to that trip I increased my frequency per body part to once every 5 days (up from every 7 days); and then in the last two weeks before the trip I trained every day to accelerate fat loss and boost metabolism (but only one body part per day). During this time, for those six weeks total, I constantly altered what application I performed and with what exercises. 5. During my Jamaican trip I only dabbled with some exercise, to remain a bit active and for something to do, but without working all that hard. I then took a week off after the trip. Now, think about what happened overall – I trained each body part once a week, and each week I utilized a different approach with different exercises. As I closed in on my intended peak (the Jamaican trip) I started integrating different approaches within the same workout for even more variation (although the overall set volume remained the same, 2-3 exercises per muscle). Eventually I increased my frequency to once every 5 days per body part, then reduced my frequency back to once every 7 days per body part, but trained every day (one body part per day). By the time I left for my trip I was in somewhat peak condition11 – very full and hard and with abs showing well (not 'ripped,' but certainly looking good). I then eased off on the training demands and relaxed on the trip, then took a week off after the trip before resuming exercise and experimenting with new applications.

11

I was not at my all-time best, insofar as leanness, but better than I was at the beginning of the Summer – it was a ‘peak’ relative to where I was.

31

The above is an example of a strategic cycle that does not remain complacent or routine, but builds up to greater demands – demands that would be too much to sustain long-term, but tolerable short-term before taking a short lay-off (this is how any Olympian athlete trains, by always imposing a ramp-up of demands). For those into very brief and infrequent training, if you think that adding volume means very little or that it leads to over-training, think of a similar scenario whereby an army General sends extra troops into battle – obviously only so many troops can be spared and sent only so often. It is not something a General would do every time, but sporadically to cause more damage and gain a lead over the enemy. Likewise, too many trainees think linearly about exercise, that either it is one set or multiple sets, one exercise or multiple exercises, and never the twain shall meet. Conversely, if bodybuilding where thought of as imposing unique challenges in short bursts of very little, moderate and a lot of volume and/or frequency (whatever those values are for a person), conditioning, recovery and overall appearance would be very different when compared to those sustaining the same thing repeatedly for months or years on end, with the only changing variable being a bit of load or an extra repetition here and there. In the latter instance, the body adapts very willingly and easily, and by adapting I’m not talking about larger muscles, but a complacency of adaptive coordination to keep lifting those loads as they increase SLOWLY without the need to produce larger muscles. In effect, many who want to build bodies and look like bodybuilders have become powerlifters or weight ‘lifters’ since their focus is on how much is being lifted for a certain tension time or repetition count. Such an approach does nothing for the advanced trainee attempting to optimize whatever muscle is possible, and the only way to coerce the body into doing so is by pushing the limits RELATIVE TO the nature of bodybuilding training and not to the nature what strength/power training is.

32

Peaking the Muscles It should be obvious to anyone with some training experience that a person can become only so muscular, whether natural or on drugs. There is a limit to everything, and that includes human strength and muscle. I have been training for 35 years, and over the last of those five years, I doubt highly that I added any muscle to my frame. Nonetheless, there are some muscles that appear larger or better developed. They don’t measure any larger and I don’t weigh any heavier, but they look better. I suspect this is true of me and other ‘veteran’ bodybuilders, and possibly as a result of an effect I notice occurs initially with women who take up weight training. When males start lifting weights, there is a slight learning curve toward moving the weights and getting a feel for it (and developing some coordinative strength) before the muscles develop and become larger. In women, due to lack of testosterone and size potential, there is far less muscle development, but what seems to happen is a re-arrangement of muscle architecture. Women can weigh the same or even less (as they lose fat from the exercise, along with proper eating), and even measure the same or slightly smaller – yet they look better developed (and they usually complain about the tightness felt in blouses, often along the arms, shoulders and upper back). In effect, the muscles take on an athletic look as they reshape. This is the body’s way of coping or adapting to the stimulus of weight training, but without producing necessarily larger muscles. This is not to suggest that some or all women cannot build larger muscles, but that there is as much emphasis on that architectural fiber re-arrangement as there is on the muscles becoming larger. And this is what I see in the very advanced trainee who will not produce larger muscles, including myself. If you continue to coerce the body with bodybuilding exercise, and yet there is no more muscle to be built, there will be slight changes in shape and pronouncement in various aspects of a muscle, which gives it a more complete and fuller look. Prior to this stage in my career, I did build muscle from ages 40 to 45, which is a different story and situation from that described above. Most body parts did not change in measurement, although I did put on nearly 10 pounds of lean tissue. This may seem a contradiction, but when we measure a muscle, it always is at the same position, such as the peak of the biceps of the upper arm or the thigh at the gluteal fold, etc. In other words, we measure the largest part of a muscle or muscle group (although we try to measure the smallest part of the waist… hmmm).

33

What is happening is that a muscle can grow only so large at its largest point, or want to grow only so large at that point since further growth affects muscle force economy/efficiency, viz., a larger muscle is a stronger muscle, but never in proportion (you can gain 10% more girth, but not necessarily gain 10% more strength or force production). Muscles lose efficiency as they grow larger since they contract at greater angles to the bones (away from a straight line of pull), and nature dictates that this be kept in check. And so, with continuous training and coercion to produce more muscle, there is no choice but to gain muscle in areas AWAY FROM its largest part, viz., towards its ends and not toward its center. This is why more mature trainees tend to look more developed overall than their younger counterparts (drug use aside). And when coupled with a change in architecture of the tissues, an even more refined and finished look is possible IF the manner of training allows for it to occur – by way of a BODYBUILDING style of training. OK, now that I have addressed the two aspects of physical change in the advanced trainee, one whereby measurement may not increase, but overall appearance and bulk can, and the second whereby the architecture (shape and detail) of a muscle can change without altering its overall bulk/size, there is an issue of why a person may want to keep bodybuilding training at an optimal level. I’m not suggesting pushing the limits every workout with wonderful and new approaches, but certainly this needs to be in place some of the time. When it comes to developing the body, applying unique challenges regularly should be obvious, but when it comes to someone who has developed everything he or she can develop, what is the point? Fundamentally, it’s to maintain what you already have. Although I may not gain any more muscle, at age 50 and with 35 years training, what is very, very apparent is that the applications required to optimize muscle size are the SAME applications necessary to sustain that peaked-out appearance from one week to the next. I doubt there is a single person reading this who does not care what s/he looks like when the shirt comes off, whether from day-to-day or every now and again. Even someone overweight will flex an arm here and there in admiration or to see how things are shaping up. When it comes to the advanced trainee, the information and applications in this book (and in nearly all the materials I’ve produced in the past decade) are meant to optimize muscle size, but just as important… to SUSTAIN that look from workout-to-workout.

34

There are times that I do look more flat and less impressive, but I find that has to do with the normal cycles of the body, including protein turnover. When I look less than usual, I don’t become paranoid and try to annihilate myself in the gym, as I know within a week I’ll spring back up to my usual fullness. However, I also pay attention to the training methods I employ. I’ve tried certain methods that involve long statics/holds on various styles of reps, and I find my muscles do not respond nearly as well as when training with constant tension and in a rhythmic manner. The same is true of very slow moving repetitions. Both applications give some effect, but nowhere near the effect of that rhythmic movement involving a lot of repetitions (whether continuous or performed in a clustered manner). Thus, the Zone Training and Tri-Angular Training methods I wrote about in the past were some of the best to optimize my muscle size, and the methods outlined in this book certainly contributed. But as important, those same methods keep the muscles looking full and peaked. Thus, it should be understandable that whether building muscle or looking one’s best when no more muscle can be built share a similar training philosophy of sufficient volume and frequency (to produce sufficient congestion and repeated challenges), regular variation and changes in cyclic demands.

Re-introducing hammer curls has improved my arm thickness. However, hammer curls tend to tighten up the brachioradialis, which can lead to tenderness in the area. Many weight trainees believe this is tendonitis (tennis elbow), but typically it is nothing more than tight fascia that can be alleviated with a bit of deep tissue massage.

35

Challenging Some Notions Many of those into bodybuilding (and not the lifting of weights with a focus on how strong they can get at select exercises) have a skewed way in which they view exercise reality. They want to be developed and build large muscles (relative to their abilities), but are not going about their training in a proper bodybuilding manner. At this juncture, I want to point out some of the flaws in thinking and philosophy (philFLAWsophy?), although I have included many those misconceptions throughout the body of this book and within my arguments. Here is one of them: “If you don’t train to failure, then there is no stimulus to cause hypertrophy.” It should be understood that I'm not against HIT style of bodybuilding (my third time stating as much). Every person eventually will reach failure some of the time on some of the sets and in some of the workouts, and this is because human strength is finite and you can lift only so much weight on any particular method, whether doing straight sets, Zone Training, or the challenges outlined in this book. Muscles require hard work in order to be stimulated to change, and hard work comes not only from effort (how close you get to fatigue), but also the challenge you impose on the muscle by way of the application. If a person always trained a set of 8-12 repetitions to failure for a muscle, then decided to try the 30-15-8 or the Light-Heavy approach, guaranteed that work will be harder on the muscles even if a trainee were to stop short one rep from failure by method's end. Why? The muscles are not used to it, and a unique challenge is just as good (better in my opinion) than merely doing the usual to-failure. And, of course, training TO failure on a new approach can be just as good or even better in some instances, but not always (you want to save that extra effort for when the time is right, viz., sporadically). The reason reaching failure is not always ideal or best, as some HIT advocates would think, depends a lot on the overall volume and approach taken with a muscle group. Remember that bodybuilding is different from strength training, and the overall demands, congestion and volume required demonstrate that. To then add more insult to injury (by way of pushing failure all the time on every set) not only makes it more difficult from which to recover, but I believe through experience and observation, that doing so can backtrack hypertrophy. What I have observed is that typically a muscle will look slightly smaller the day after exercise, as though a turtle retreats its head back into its shell. It's as though the muscle is cringing and going 'ouch' as it retracts from the shock of (productive) exercise.12 Pushing the limits of exercise too often or all the time seems to exaggerate that reaction and, at times, result in the muscle not rebounding back, to become larger. When training a muscle properly and with a good method, it engorges and swells to the point of stretching the skin uncomfortably, followed 12

Actually, this is a good way to determine if the overall demands of a workout are too extreme, thus requiring you to tame down the next workout or to increase recovery days. I’ve had some workouts that were very tough and I did not look better or fuller a few days after the fact, but appeared less muscular. This may or may not be accompanied by severe DOMS; and so, do keep track of how muscles respond from various stimuli.

36

by a day of retreat, then another 2-3 days of optimum fullness (minus the pump from exercise, of course). It then subsides for a few days (but still looks full) until trained again. This is the effect of that 'always looking solid and peaked' of which I speak when proper bodybuilding exercise is applied. I do not get this from traditional HIT style training and I particularly never experienced this from very brief and infrequent Consolidation training that Mike Mentzer recommended during his final years. In fact, during Mike's last moments I knew he was coming to this realization, that the logic behind 'train as hard as possible while doing as little as possible and very infrequently' did not live up to the hype and philosophical conclusions that he initially thought… which is besides the point, I suppose, since I have no way to prove how he thought in the end. In any case, let's backtrack and consider the comments from a person who is a staunch HIT advocate, with years of training under his belt. His remarks are based on other trainees doing more than one set per muscle, and in some cases several mini-sets (clusters): "Why so many sets ? One of the main ideas of HIT is that more than one set is counterproductive. Believe me if you truly take a set to failure you won't need or want more. Failure is to the point where you can't move the bar anymore and then you try anyway; the last rep should fail as you are moving and when you can't move the bar anymore you pull or push into the unmoving bar with all your might and keep going for about 30 seconds, keep pushing/ pulling into it even though you can't move." If one were to review the history of HIT, it would be clear that more than one set per exercise has been suggested (early Arthur Jones); although as he refined his philosophy and approach Arthur Jones, and others after him, then recommended (on average) one set per exercise, but often there existed more than one exercise per muscle. Many of the programs outlined in books or manuals by Jones, Dr. Darden, and even earlier Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty Courses called upon multiple exercises per muscle, such as using pre-exhaust, besides straight sets. It only has been recent, with the push for ultra-brief Consolidation or some form of ‘hyper’ training that more than one set per muscle is taboo. But consider what this person is suggesting, that you are to train each exercise beyond a typical set (e.g., 10 reps, 50-seconds?) with another 30-seconds of isometric work. There are two problems with his suggestion. First, not every exercise allows this, such as squats, leg presses, barbell chest presses, etc., since how do you get out of position afterward? Strength reserves would be reduced to nearly zero and no training partner would want to be responsible for hoisting those loads off the trainee afterward. But even on exercises that do allow for postfatigue isometrics, I guarantee that beating one's self up so excessively will not stimulate additional muscle gains (if it did, it would be on the micro-negligible level) and will hamper recovery (no wonder some people need 10+ days recovery between workouts – both for physical and motivational-psychological reasons). I have been there and done that, and speak with experience on this matter.

37

Again, understand the need for sufficient volume and frequency to optimize bodybuilding potential, and how it is different from merely building strength (viz., improving lifting performance) in the gym, and it should be obvious that lack of volume and particularly frequency in this person's recommendation is NOT a bodybuilding approach. There is a ‘coaxing’ element in bodybuilding that requires sufficient build-up, fatigue and congestion that is not required or even apropos for optimizing strength (gym performance). OK, here is the next comment: "We can all learn a lesson from watching those who have built no muscle; they have no plan, no progress chart, no one to push them to work through the pain, no concentration, earphones plugged in, stopping to chat, and the error of using barbells when Nautilus One is a few steps away." There is a lot of bullshit there, but I will relate this to myself (since a person may or may not build muscle for any number of reasons). I am not a very large individual, but physically I hold a good amount of muscle for my frame and look like I bodybuild. Having said that, I don't have a clear-cut plan, but an 'idea' in which to implement and to see what happens. Then, in the future, I may re-apply that concept, although in a different manner. I will not maintain any 'plan' since I have adapted to it, and need time for my muscles to forget about it so that the method possibly can have another positive effect later on in training. Two, I have no progress chart. I have a sense of what weights I can use relative to the method, which I often guess correctly, and will adjust if a bit too heavy or too light (as well, I can improvise or freestyle training to best make use of a weight that is too heavy or too light). I do not have anyone to push me through the pain of a workout – I have motivation that allows me to do that. Certainly a person needs concentration, which coincides with motivation to train hard, and so no argument there. I don't have earphones plugged in, but I do listen to music on occasion and often listen to CBC talk radio (I ignore it during training, but listen in while resting as it diverts my mind and actually accelerates my mental recovery between sets); many of my clients train harder with music and it puts them in a positive mood and can even make them more responsive (heavy metal music can do that). I don't stop to chat, since there is no one with whom to chat when I train. There is nothing wrong with barbells, dumbbells or cable machines, and I believe they are SUPERIOR to machines (including Nautilus) if used appropriately and if understood, which brings me to my next point.

38

Machines vs. Free-weights The best tool is the one you are not used to. Take a person who has done nothing but (or mostly) free-weight training and develop a cable machine workout and watch that person's muscles 'pop.' If he does not produce additional growth from the cable machines, then certainly his muscles will peak and look better because of the different and unique stimulation (at least for a while and until the muscles adapt to that environment). Likewise, the same is true of selectorized or plate-loaded machines – and a variation in stimulus exists even among different machines since they all have unique feels and force curves. The use of a machine, cable apparatus or a free weight (whether dumbbells or barbells) is no different in its nature than how you train – they are variables. If you did nothing but incline dumbbell presses for your chest, and in the rep range of 8-10, you would adapt to the movement no matter how hard and heavy you trained, and gains would slow. But if you started to integrate stutter reps, Zone Training, the 50-Rep Challenge, etc., or even progressed from 1-2 sets of the movement to 4-5 sets (presuming that many is not overkill for you), there is enough of a shock factor to stimulate potential growth. Now, keeping all this in mind, and whether applying few or many sets (with straight sets or other methods like stutter reps), mixing and matching different machines, cables and free-weights always will be superior to simply using the same equipment. Having said that and it's the way I prefer to train, if I were limited to one medium it would be the use of free-weights. I do have a slight preference for cable machines for upper body training, but I never experienced as much growth and stimulation as what I have with barbell squats and deadlifts, and dumbbell chest presses (I prefer dumbbells to that of barbells for chest training). There are individuals who cannot barbell squat or deadlift, and for various reasons of leverage or injury, but I'm also speaking of being in an ideal world, or at least injury free and of normal stature. And, of course, doing nothing but barbell squats and deadlifts can be very wearing on the spine and other joints over time, which is why I recommend using all types of equipment and in different ways and not just with a focus of lifting more and more weight. OK, so why do I think free-weight training is superior and what people may be doing wrong with free-weights? An argument for the use of free-weights is that they work the 'stabilizer' muscles (whereas machines guide movement and do not as well or at all), but it is fact there are no 'stabilizer' muscles in the truest sense (any muscle can be a prime move, a stabilizer, etc., depending on the exercise in question). And no muscle playing the role of stabilizer can be trained as hard (in order to stimulate growth) than when it is as a prime mover. Therefore, I don't buy the idea that free-weights are superior because they stimulate better the stabilizer muscles. And so, let’s set that aside.

39

If we consider machines (not cable machines, but things like chest presses, leg presses, arm curl or leg curl machines, etc.), there is an obvious guidance taking place, as a muscle or group of muscles contract from stretch to finish. Generally, there is not much visual cheating or body movement that can or will occur and when you fail, and you typically will fail with the same body alignment or positioning (give or take an inch). When using free-weights (or cable machines), I believe there is greater muscle stimulation due to the fact that there is no guidance (you have to assume control of body alignment, positioning, etc., and as you work the exercise). This can be a negative in some environments, such as working on a Swiss ball, viz., there is too much balance requirement or instability, which robs the target muscles of stimulation, but I’m talking about traditional free-weight training. Let's take the squat, since it is considered the ultimate mass builder for the lower body (and anyone who tries to compare any leg press as being as effective for thigh development is delusional). The idea of squatting is to maintain as flat a back as possible and to stay as upright as possible – and if you begin to lean forward (due to fatigue of the exercise), then you still must maintain that flattish back in order to prevent spinal flexion (rounding) and spinal compression. Now, if you were to videotape yourself or watch an experienced person squat (at least down to parallel and not top partials), you will note that positioning changes as that person's thighs (quadriceps) fatigue: as the reps progress the buttocks slowly drift backward, even if only by fractions of an inch at a time, and the torso leans more forward, even if only by fractions of an inch at a time. In effect, the body attempts to gain leverage and invoke other muscles more; in this case, more thigh adductors, hamstrings and gluteals.

I built my legs squatting and lunging. No matter how hard I trained on leg press, leg extensions and other movements, they did little more than maintain some of the size. If you are unable to back-squat a barbell, try Smith machine squats, and if that does not agree with you, invest in the Frank Zane Leg Blaster. I have clients with knee and low back issues who still can squat in the Leg Blaster.

40

The above is important to understand if you also understand that different fibers work relative to positioning. With something as simple as the biceps of the upper arm performing a very strict curl (no change of positioning) certain fibers work at the point of stretch, and as the biceps contract, tension shifts to other fibers of the biceps. This is good reason to train any muscle at various angles and with different exercises, as doing so will produce more thorough development and growth; this is why bodybuilders adopt a multi-angle approach as opposed to sticking with the same handful of exercises every workout. Nonetheless, if we consider the change in squat positioning as muscles fatigue, it should be obvious that not only are other muscles (glutes, hams, adductors) working harder as the quads exhaust, but tension now changes or shifts in the quadriceps themselves! Those fibers working in the quads when the body is more upright and the butt more tucked in are different than those fibers working in the quads as fatigue progresses and position changes. In this vein, it also can be understood that as muscles fatigue and the body is not in a rigid position (as with machine training), adjusting body positioning encourages 'cheating,' which also means being able to continue muscle work that otherwise would have to stop (as with machine training); or even being able to use heavier loads because of the position-altering and cheating factors that exist with free-weight training. We now have THREE things inherent in most free-weight exercises that are not as apparent in most machine-based training exercises: 1. More muscle stimulation due to greater potential of position change; 2. Continuation of exercise when strict form no longer is enough; and 3. The ability to use heavier loading because of the first two factors. There also is the issue that machines often are one-trick ponies, whereas far more exercises and angles are possible with free-weights, but I want to focus next on the productivity of freeweight training. Generally, a lot of people do not like the feel of free-weights and find the intensity and quality of contraction higher with machines. I certainly understand that and agree with it. The problem is, having those guided intense contractions will do only so much to trigger growth (viz., it is only one part of the formula, because if it was that vital, we would see far more muscle being developed with machine training). Yes, a different environment of guided, intense contractions with machine training can be good for a free-weight trainee (since it is different), but exclusive machine training has never been proven superior, from the early days of Nautilus to present. And so, what is the issue with free-weights by those who adore machine training? Fundamentally, those people never learned HOW to use free-weights. Because a person is in charge of free-weight control, it is easy to become relaxed in that control if focus re-directs to progressive loading. A person can get caught up in merely hoisting, pushing or leveraging free-weights while trying for more weight or more repetitions, and this eventually can lead to the belief that free-weights are hard on the joints and connective tissues. Rather, here are the keys to effective free-weight training that I rarely see in gyms and I don't believe have read before (although some authors may have addressed it): 41

1. Understand the action of the muscle(s) involved in an exercise; 2. Experience how each muscle stretches and contracts under tension when performing a particular exercise; 3. Visualize the action of the muscle, of what it is doing as you contract against the load (which combines points 1 and 2); and 4. Attempt to flex the working muscle(s) while lifting a barbell or dumbbell. The forth point should carry the most weight, as it helps to support the other points. For example, flex your biceps as though you are holding a dumbbell, but are not... an imaginary curl whose tension is based on your internal (mental and physical) tension efforts. Next, perform a dumbbell curl with the usual load, but at the same time include some flexing in the mix so that the tension is controlled and purposeful and you are not merely 'lifting' a dumbbell. The same application can be applied to any body part or exercise (and works well with cable exercises), but it is with chest training that the above four points seems to be lacking. Most people simply push a weight off the chest without even knowing the function of the pectorals (viz., arm adduction, or to bring the arms across the body as though doing a pec flye). Thus, when performing a chest press, whether with dumbbells or a barbell, I think of the pecs stretching out and back when lowering the weight, and then I think of the pecs flexing and bunching up into a powerful contraction (as though squeezing a ball between the pecs) as they pull the upper arms inward toward the mid-line of the body. This visualization, coupled with conscious flexing of the pecs make a significant difference in muscle development, the effectiveness of free-weights, and the amount of weight you can use (you use less and gain more!). *** *** All right, enough about free-weight vs. machine training. Here is the next point I want to address: “According to one trainee he has been training hard for 6 years and now has these dramatic increases in 4 months. Is this type of quick gain common in an advanced trainee?” There are a few misconceptions in this statement, which I will address one at a time. First, do not be mistaken that just because you are training hard that the application is appropriate. Appropriate for what? Well, this book is about BODYBUILDING, and just about any person who is weight training wants to look better. Sure, you may be exercising for the health of it, to be more functional and stronger, but every person (male at least) does a bit of posing or flexing in front of the mirror and vanity dictates that if you're going to be working hard and doing it for years, there better be something to SHOW for it, right? And so, it is very possible to train hard for several months and for several years without looking any different. And since the amount of muscle you can or will gain is finite (and a fraction of 42

what you see in muscle magazines), you can look only so big and developed while the rest of the time is spent maintaining that look and keeping that looked peaked, viz., full muscle appearance with low enough body fat to see muscle separation and development. Now, while the development of muscle and/or strength requires hard work, since no amount of easy work will stimulate further progress of either factor, there is a very evident and obvious difference between being good in the gym (being able to lift heavier loads) and applying a BODYBUILDING style of training that involves a lot of muscle congestion (pump) and fatigue in short order, viz., brief, high-density training. In bodybuilding the focus is about the building of fatigue that is coaxed up to a pinnacle, but done in as little time as possible (in order to be economical and conservative) – all the while implementing methodologies that involve some form of challenge (and better yet, a unique challenge). That which is most challenging will be best, so long as the muscles are ready for it. The idea of 'most challenging' is not about how hard the training is at any one moment (how close you get to muscular fatigue or having reached muscular fatigue), although that is ONE factor in the equation. Rather, it is about implementing different or unique methods, applications or strategies that the muscles are not used to or have adapted. In effect, the more foreign the application (while remaining within your tolerance levels and within that BODYBUILDING environment or nature), the greater the 'shock' factor or stimulus to entice further muscle development. Remember that the body adapts to exercise by means of more muscle, but also the prevention of further muscle development (the body RESISTS further change), and it adapts SPECIFICALLY to the demands imposed upon it. If those demands are Program X, and Program X is a good program that will produce some muscle change, then the body and its muscles then will RESIST further change from Program X after some muscle has been built because it has ADAPTED to those SPECIFIC DEMANDS. Thus, we have the SAID Principle, Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands in action and in two different ways. This leads us into the next point about obtaining dramatic increases in muscle very quickly. Well, the concept of 'dramatic' is abstract, and so is 'very quickly' (what is the measure of either?). But I will say this: A program that is effective to develop muscle will stimulate that change very quickly – the results will occur from just one workout and from every other workout thereafter (if such is possible) until the body ADAPTS by way of developing the maximum amount of muscle possible from that program. And at that point the body ADAPTS by RESISTING further change from that program (as a means of protecting the body, since muscle growth is metabolically expensive and not something the body wants beyond a certain point). Next and this is true particularly of the advanced trainee, any program that has the potential to stimulate further muscle change will be and must be good enough that the change that will occur can be felt and seen very quickly. Thus, the idea of a dramatic change may not be 10pounds of muscle, but certainly dramatic enough that it can be seen or authenticated in a body part or all body parts in standardized photographs (for which Dr. Ellington Darden is known). And a lot that has been stated thus far leads us to this point: 43

“I believe over-training is the #1 reason for lack of progress.” Although over-training may be a reason, there are a lot of people who do not train hard enough to produce progress, whether ‘hard enough’ means training to failure or simply applying an appropriate approach to which the body has not adapted. For many hardcore HIT enthusiasts, I believe the latter is responsible. Many HITers are training hard enough (although I’ve been surprised as to how many claim to train hard only to not train all that hard – and coupled with lack of volume and frequency they are under-training). And so, for those who push the limits, and include all types of heavy partials, statics and negatives, etc., we return to the main problem for lack of progress. If one’s focus is on adding load while pushing muscles to the limits in as few exercises/sets as possible, even if there is sufficient frequency (once a week for any muscle generally is enough), then the issue involving lack of stimulus is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Lack of specific (SAID) bodybuilding congestion training. Lack of sufficient training volume, which ties into the first point. Usually there is lack of a higher-rep rhythmic approach.13 Too much focus on how much is being lifted (coupled with maximum effort) while neglecting the quality of the overall training experience and how the weight is being lifted. 5. Lack of variation and unique challenges to disrupt adaptation (however, lack of variation does support the ability to redirect focus on adding load to the exercises). Certainly dedication is not lacking in most HITers, as that is what makes them such an enthusiastic and passionate bunch. Rather, many in that group have become minimalists by taking some things to the extreme (weight/load increases and effort) while reducing other factors as much as possible (variation, volume and rhythmic higher-rep training). It cannot be pure coincidence that this group looks less developed than other trainees who have adopted a more traditional bodybuilding approach, even if many of those (muscle magazine) approaches are flawed in their own ways.

13

In other words, over-use of very slow repetitions; slow reps are not a bad thing, but if used all the time or too often, doing so will limit growth potential.

44

The Bane of Consolidation vs. Bodybuilding When I challenge the notion that very brief, infrequent and intense workouts do little to stimulate muscle mass, I'm not just blowing hot air out my arse. Having worked with Mike Mentzer (the primary proponent of the minimalist approach), having been guided by him in my training for two years, I looked my worse while performing such training, and yet I was my strongest – at least I could lift the heaviest loads in select exercises while training in that manner. Regardless, as my muscles flatted and my appearance stopped looking like I did bodybuilding, it became so obvious that there is a disconnect when trying to optimize gym performance (lifting ability) and trying to optimize muscle hypertrophy and peak appearance. I wasn't alone, and recently a bodybuilding forum member stated this: "It was after many 2-4 week stints, much time and patient application of 2/wk HIT and HIT-ish applications --- probably 8 yrs after I got 'You work out?!' responses during my Consolidation days." No Virginia, we're not alone, as many doing such workouts continually report the 'gains' they are making, but those gains always are in the way of weights being lifted in the gym without the corresponding change in muscle size, shape, conditioning, etc. Don't get me wrong... there's only so much muscle that can be developed, and a person can 'peak' the muscles only so much... but those Consolidation followers (whether it's Mentzer, Omega Sets, RenEx, Super Slow, etc.) simply do NOT look the part and often we are hard-pressed to see whether they even exercise. During my partnership with Mentzer, we published a bi-monthly newsletter called the Heavy Duty Bulletin, and I repeatedly asked Mike for his client files that I suspected would include photos, measurements, body composition reports... something to suggest the fantastic results that Mentzer claimed would happen and were happening under his Heavy Duty Consolidation approach. This never happened (in fact, Mike never had any files on his clients to my knowledge, at least nothing beyond a Rolodex-type filing system). Nonetheless, as we sold books and newsletter subscriptions, I corresponded and befriended many of our customers, either calling or emailing most of them to ask for their results on Consolidation, and preferably photographs to show their great muscular size and conditioning. Not a single case came forward to boast of any such results, but about two-hundred over the years did state flat out that they never looked so bad, and even lost some muscle fullness while getting incredibly strong by performing the same exercises over-and-over and in a brief, intense and infrequent manner.

45

Oh... there is a difference between lifting weights and bodybuilding. Yes, a person (who is relatively new to lifting weights) can develop SOME muscle on such training, but the advanced trainee with years of ADAPTATION to all kinds of wild and wonderful gym experiments certainly need a more challenging direction. Those people need high-density training (viz., a high degree of muscular work performed in as little time as possible). This concept will vary from person-toperson, but can be optimized by way of short rests between short sets and exercising subfailure (1-2 reps short of failure) for the most part in order to maintain a training rhythm and muscle activity up to a point of maximizing congestion (pump). Sets should be brief and preferably performed in a cluster-type fashion (short excursions followed by short rests for recovery); doing so not only helps to keep density high, but brief activity followed by a brief rest allows for blood to gush in and out of the working muscle more effectively, thus maximizing muscle pump. Whether or not you believe the pump has an effect (there is conflicting opinion on this) is irrelevant... it simply feels euphoric, although some HIT ‘experts’ don’t believe that training should be enjoyable (likely because what they do is not enjoyable). However, if we consider that cell pressure from blood engorgement does have a mild effect on increasing cell wall thickness (greater protein uptake to adapt against the pressure), then there is a size factor that results from intense pumping that cannot be achieved through those brief and intense training methods. On that note and I wrote about this before, when you notice the pump is not increasing at a particular juncture in a workout, and even may be on the down-slide, then stop training that muscle. Vince Gironda first brought up this 'clue' or 'cue' as to when exercise should stop for a body part, and it has worked well for me, thus limiting exercise to about 10-12 minutes per muscle no matter the challenge I give it. Also, there needs to be a rhythm in training, which not only means a small amount of exercise followed by a small amount of rest (often you can have the two match... 30-seconds training followed by 30-seconds rest), but a natural rhythm in movement... controlled contractions in an up-and-down piston-fashion without any sloppiness and without trying to move fast or slow beyond what feels 'normal' relative to the weight being lifted). Obviously a heavier load will cause you to move a bit slower and a lighter weight will feel more natural to 'pump' a bit faster. This is not to suggest that slow or ultra-slow movements are not good or beneficial; they are favorable for rehab, those with osteoporosis, many of the elderly, when teaching quality movement and muscle tension, and certainly as a 'shock' factor when muscles are not used moving very slow... but generally, maintain a rhythm in exercise execution and in a workout overall to achieve a higher density of repetitions/sets per unit of time.

46

Part of the problem with heavy lifting, a problem associated more with the HIT crowd than any other, is the regular use of slow movement. The heavier you train, the more you need to control movement to prevent injury, and that means moving ‘slow enough.’ The Superslow direction of exercise tainted this crowd, but even those who balk at such slow movement (e.g., 10-seconds up and 10-second down) still move ‘relatively’ slow at 4/4, 5/5, etc. I certainly was in that boat, and while running the IART Certification company I recommended a 5/5 cadence, albeit mostly for teaching proper form with beginner clients; but still, I often trained with that slowness. Think about it: When limiting sets to 1-2 per muscle, when focusing on lifting heavy weights and always increasing weights, and when keeping cadence fairly slow, you may only perform 6-8 repetitions per exercise… and sometimes a few more, e.g., 8-10 reps, but not much more. And if doing only 1-2 sets per muscle, then you’re looking at fewer than 20 reps total per muscle (only 6-10 reps if you do only one set) each workout, and this may be done once every 7-21 days (depending how extreme you have taken the ‘low frequency’ route). Although bodybuilders throughout history have incorporated power-lifting style of training now and again, as a shock factor and to focus on different means of training for different reasons, nearly all of them still trained and continue to train in a particular way – rhythmic and with higher repetitions (and even when those reps are only 8-12, still they perform many brief sets in a cluster manner to achieve a lot of reps overall in a workout). Yes, training needs to be frequent enough and for reasons already explained. However, training with 'sufficient' frequency (which can vary among muscles and even exercises, e.g., dumbbell curls vs. deadlifts) necessitates that a high level of intensity-of-effort needs to be restrained and maxed only when appropriate or sporadically. Most HIT people think differently, in that effort must be maximal all the time, and therefore frequency and exercise volume be limited in order to accommodate the effort. However, this is not conducive to that bodybuilding appearance. You need to get enough volume and frequency, which necessitates maximum intensity of effort be used as a 'finishing' tool when the time is right and not as a must factor on every set and every time you step in the gym. Most of my training hovers around the 8.5 to 9-out-of-10 in effort range – that is true of most sets and even half my workouts. Every second workout, on average, I do push some sets on some of the exercises, and not because I'm reaching a particular 'rep count' (e.g., a goal to reach 10 repetitions with a given weight), but because I choose to push that envelope. I can feel the ability in my muscles and in my recovery so that I can do that and not risk any repercussions insofar as recovery and fatigue are concerned. Restraint takes some practice if you are a die-hard HITer, but try holding off by a rep or two every exercise and in every workout, and eventually you get a feel for when you should push the limits while being able to achieve more density in your workouts.

47

Now, a fair argument may be: "For those who've gotten bigger by such training, what has it done for them in the way of strength?" From my perspective, and those with a focus on body development, we really don't care how strong we get. We don't care if we can't bench 300-pounds (or whatever the number), but that we look the part. And generally our sex partners don’t care that we can bench a lot of weight, but that our pecs look good (as shallow as that may seem, sexual attractiveness centers a lot more on appearance than gym performance). Really, that is what bodybuilding is about, and it pisses off those busting a nut in the gym trying to get as strong as possible in the BELIEF that all those strength gains eventually lead to more muscle. They don't understand, nor do they accept it even when I have explained it to them that a lot of improvement in lifting weights has to do with the points outlined on pages 3-4. Moving on to more Mentzer-esque thoughts of persuasion, someone on a HIT-based exercise site stated the following: "The liberals of the world need to pay attention to this truth, which applies to ALL facets of life: 'To say that there is no one valid theory, or that all approaches have merit, is tantamount to stating that the intellectual method of the voodoo witch doctor is as likely to correct a brain aneurysm as would that of a neuro-surgeon. Obviously, there is a lifeand-death difference between the application of true ideas and false ideas. In bodybuilding, the difference between the application of true and false ideas is: Actualize your full muscular potential in a relatively short period – or fail to ever achieve it.' The universality of the human physiology upholds Mentzer's statement here. All men basically are constructed the same anatomically. Just as there is only one way to expand the lungs, there in one way to effectively build muscle." Where to begin? It is ironic that people who followed Mentzer's training advice, at the time he stated that a person is able to actualize one's full muscular potential in a relatively short period (how long is that? We don't know) also made their worse muscular gains/changes as compared to a typical and traditional bodybuilding type of routine (which often is not ideal either, but better than performing 2-5 exercises for the entire body every 10-21 days!). That aside, there is more than one effective approach to building muscle, as can be witnessed among all the developed bodies around the world, all of which are doing little things that are different in application. In fact, anyone with a good physique also will be the one to experiment and change with the times, as the body adapts, which means not always doing the same things repeatedly.

48

Humans may be the same in the general sense (we have cells, organs, bones), but the complexity of our adaptation, and our individual tolerances to strain (exercise) cannot be compared with the operation of the lungs (as per the example in the quote above). We all exist along a Bell Curve continuum, in that some people may tolerate 10 sets for the biceps, whereas others can tolerate only one set; some respond better to higher reps, whereas other respond better to lower reps; some thrive on and can do squats, whereas others do not have good levers to perform the exercise properly. The list goes on and on. When considering the specifics of training, in order to keep the muscles growing and/or looking peaked in development from workout-to-workout, training strain cannot be linear. To 'force' more muscle growth you need to push the envelope, which means a level of strain that cannot be tolerated long-term, but only short-term. And then once having completed a short time of hyper-activity (whether a few weeks or a few months, depending on the nature of the rampingup of demands), there is a need for a decrease in those demands. This is how Olympic athletes (heck, any successful athlete) trains over the long-haul. Oddly, so many weight trainees (HITers are the worse) think that so long as they train hard, they can do as little as they want and growth will occur... and if it doesn't occur, then blame genetics and non-use of drugs. The above is so important to understand, that if you want to look your best (no matter the weights lifted), you need to have periods of less strain, moderate strain, and maximum strain. There needs to be a cycling of the overall demands that entice the muscles to grow, followed by down-time for proper mental and physical recovery (but not so long that you lose all or most of those gains... some loss is normal, since you are applying fewer demands, but the idea is ‘twosteps-forward-and-one-step-back,’ as any top caliber athlete can attest). More was said on Developing a Strategy of Challenges on page x, and so review those ideas if need be.

49

10 Rules How NOT to Bodybuild RULE 1: Become a weight lifter by trying to see how much you can lift (for whatever number of repetitions); avoid the quality of the training experience for any particular muscle since it’s the quantity of what you lift that is vital to success. RULE 2: Force yourself to keep lifting heavier weights by increasing outlying muscle participation (squeeze the heck out of all muscles to increase overall body force); this does not increase tension on the targeted muscles, but will drain you systemically and impress your ego – and if you feel drained overall, then you must be on the right track. RULE 3: In order to fulfill the above requirements, do not alter your program for as long as possible – stick with the same exercises performed in the same manner until you become so frustrated by looking the same, even after increasing your lifting performance by 20% or 30% (and you feel like you’re going pop an eye-ball if you add any more weight to the leg press) that eventually you have to change to another program of doing the same exercises in the same manner repeatedly (and then keep that up for as long as possible). However, during this time maintain your belief in the numbers – after all, math is a universal language that does not lie and it’s the most disciplined science we have; if the reps or how much you lift increase, then something good must be happening toward obtaining that superstar body you always wanted. As with any gambler, eventually you will win the jackpot so long as you remain consistent and keep playing those same cards. RULE 4: Don’t even consider the idea that integrating different combinations of effort-setsfrequency-performance methods may have value and could stimulate change in muscles that are highly adaptable and have adapted to the ‘routine’ you have given them; people who think “insanity is defined as doing the same things over and over and expect a different outcome” are themselves insane and not thinking logically – eventually good things come to those who train hard (since intense effort is the key and the proverbial ‘light switch’ that allows muscle luminosity to shine down in all its glory). RULE 5: In order to keep sets to a bare minimum, make certain your effort is 100% by the end of a set and on all sets, as this also ensures you will trigger the growth mechanism response; after all, there can’t possibly be any other factor in the overall demands of training that could contribute to triggering that cause-and-effect; it all comes down to how hard you train and if you feel like puking or passing out at the end of the set. And yes, don’t forget to add set extenders, such as forced repetitions, negatives and static holds that have you endure for another 30 or more seconds after already having reached failure… just in case reaching failure wasn’t quite enough on that particular day, or perhaps you can produce extra growth weeks or months from now from the added effort done today! RULE 6: Avoid the pump and any deep feeling of congestion/fatigue in a muscle by keeping the number of sets you perform to a bare minimum; if you train as hard as possible and the numbers go up (in load or reps), what’s the point of performing additional sets beyond 1-2 for a muscle? 50

RULE 7: As you feel progressively more fatigued over the weeks, months and years, don’t forget to decrease the number of exercises performed, as well as your frequency… and to the point of barely training; at this juncture you can brag about doing 10-minute (or less) workouts every 14 days and how the massive loads you lift continue to climb (to the point of maxing out all the machines at your gym). You may want a better body, but surely the results in how much you lift someday will translate into muscle… like an alchemist turning base metal into gold. RULE 8: As hypertrophy remains unchanged, muscles slowly flatten and body fat slowly increases (thus giving the illusion of greater size or bulk, particularly under your favorite XXL sweatshirt), mock those who do look good as their size is merely ‘edema’ and ‘inflammation’ from all that ‘pumping,’ as well as glycogen over-compensation – in other words, their look isn’t real, an illusion, whereas you are the real deal! Your results in exercise gym performance speak for themselves! RULE 9: In support of Rule 8, make certain to keep body fat levels high so that it is impossible to determine if growth is or is not occurring; that way you can forget about it as you focus on your weight ‘lifting.’ Concurrently, avoid any picture taking with your shirt off as photographic evidence is no evidence at all – lighting can play tricks on your eyes and mind. Really, anyone who looks better than you in photos must be because of a pre-pump and trick lighting (shadows) and not because of how they train. RULE 10: As time marches on, as you age and testosterone levels decrease, clarify to those who ask “do you weight train?” or “do you still weight train?” that you don’t have very good genetics and anyone who looks good must be on steroids – even if those people weigh the same as you at the same height, yet look so much different; if not the drugs, then it must be all that inflammation and glycogen forced into the muscles.

51

2. Practical Bodybuilding I do not train in a traditional HIT (High Intensity Training) manner. But, then again, what is HIT? As best as I can conclude, HIT refers in the general sense as to being ‘brief and intense training,’ as opposed to there being only ‘one way’ in which to apply it. There are so many versions of HIT that it could be surmised that my once-per-week-per-body-part is somewhat HIT since it takes me only 10-12 minutes to train any particular area (and that includes rests between sets). Conversely, since I don’t train each set to fatigue, and I often train more than one set per exercise, most would argue that I do not train HIT. It all depends on one’s take of a vague and generalized recommendation of ‘hard and brief.’ Fair enough. I really don’t classify myself as a HIT trainee either, but more of a High-Density trainee… attempting to achieve as much work per unit of time, whether doing full-ROM reps, Zone Training, or anything between and in as little time as possible. Thus, what I do have in common with the HIT crowd is economy, although my direction steers off course from the generalization of ‘hard and brief’ as I attempt to produce as much inroad and congestion in as little time as possible and only as frequently as possible (or as often as I can tolerate) while imposing regularly changing challenges to the muscles; in essence, ‘eclectic bodybuilding.’ My frequency is no more than most recommended exercise programs (e.g., once every 7 days) including those considered HIT; and although more frequent than the Consolidation crowd (e.g., once every 10-14 days), I do take a week off regularly, often once per month, and so overall my training frequency is no more than the lower-frequency group. The overall training time per body part is not that much, and out of 10-12 minutes I invest in a body part, actual exercise may be 7-8 minutes at most. If you consider traditional HIT of two exercises per bodypart (one set each) at 60-seconds per exercise (on average), that’s 2-minutes of work time. And traditionally, these full-body workouts would be done 2-3 times per week, although in the past decade the recommendation has been no more than twice per week (the second workout being non-failure training). And so, that’s 4-minutes of training time vs. my 7-8 minutes. Big deal – I’m working for a bit longer when already in the gym, and I would compare my physique to any ‘natural’ HIT trainee with similar genetics.

52

Understand that, overall, the training investment (gym time and frequency) is not that much different between me and someone who does one set per exercise to failure. What is different is how we choose to execute those sets, besides the overall strategy. I suspect a large majority of HIT enthusiasts perform very standard full ROM sets, and nearly as many are conformists, in that they do the same things every workout while attempting to add weight (in the belief that a high-intensity of effort coupled with progressive overload are the ONLY or PRIMARY governing factors to induce muscle hypertrophy). This is very narrow-sightedness and the proof as to that training philosophy’s lack of effectiveness has been in for quite some time and continues to be ignored. I WISH that I only needed one set per exercise; I WISH that focusing only on loads were enough; I WISH that the HIT philosophy in general was enough to optimize my physique. However, that has not occurred and wishing won’t make it true. Don’t get me wrong, since HIT has served me well over the years – it got me off the high-volume magazine workouts… it helped to bring my physique up to a certain level of development… and in the process I learned much about recovery and stimulation. But when it comes to physique optimization I also learned that for the natural trainee there is a strong middle-ground between those conventional magazine workouts and the HIT philosophy. And I KNOW that Arthur Jones and Dr. Ellington Darden were aware of this as well, by implementing ‘specialization’ workouts (upward of 6-8 sets of different exercises in Arthur’s case!) when wanting to stimulate growth in lagging body parts. After all, if you are training all out, and you cannot train any harder, adding more volume (short-term) is one of the only viable solutions (training more frequently was not a consideration years ago, since traditional HIT was done full-body three times a week). While experimenting over the past decade with condensed volume approaches, it became obvious that training with a focus on ‘density’ was the final frontier when it came to bodybuilding for the natural trainee. It was a way of stimulating optimal growth potential, while adjusting one’s rate-of-frequency and the overall demands per workout. In effect, whether focusing only on one exercise or multiple exercises per body part, or whether training to failure all the time or some of the time, much could be accomplished in short order. Yes, it is possible to condense a huge training impact in a matter of minutes and take your physique to a different plateau (or keep it there as you age).

53

Recall what was discussed in the first chapter, that a person can incorporate different methods of training (e.g., endurance, strength, hypertrophy), but if you want to optimize one trait, then you must downplay the others. Doing so is contingent on the SAID Principle – in order to adapt specifically (e.g., maximum hypertrophy) then imposed demands must be specific to that adaptation. If you focus on strength increases and how much you can lift in the gym (and gym performance), then you WILL NOT and CAN NOT optimize bodybuilding potential, a style of training that necessitates less focus on gym/strength function and more attention on highdensity, high-repetition, high-congestion exercise. However, it must be done within the means of the individual and not relative to what we read in magazines or what steroid-using athletes are doing. If you think otherwise, then I need you to think about this: Do baseball players who want to optimize baseball skills practice basketball? Do tri-athletes invest a lot of time strength training, or do they focus predominantly on endurance training? Of all the months and years you invested in getting as strong as possible, how much has that actually contributed or translated into you LOOKING like a bodybuilder (or do you blame genetics and hide under heavy sweatshirts… or carry a lot of body fat to help make up for the muscle size you lack)? I’m certainly nothing great to look at, around 200 pounds when relatively lean (and I suspect a good 15 pounds lighter if I wanted to compete ‘ripped’), but whether wearing clothes or not, I receive regular complements on my physique and never have been mistaken as a powerlifter or someone who simply dabbles in exercise. And it’s not about genetics, since this wasn’t always the case. At age 15 and 5’10” in height, I weighed 139 pounds (that’s after a year or so of exercise); and by age 25 I weighed 165 pounds (fairly lean, but unless I wore something tight, you wouldn’t know I exercised). And so, after an initial 10 years of regular lifting and some natural growth through maturation, I had a normal weight body for my height, although I looked athletic with my shirt off. I did not look like a bodybuilder all that much, but it was starting to show. At that point I started getting more into HIT-style bodybuilding, which was a lot like the older Mentzer Heavy Duty programs (split program with 3-4 exercises per body part), but also while integrating different methods that I read in magazines and books and that would interest me. In a sense, it was a very eclectic style of HIT that involved sufficient variation with hard training (and likely a bit too much frequency). I tried full-body training repeatedly, but always found a greater response with a split program. I produced decent results over time, as I then got my weight up to 186-pounds… not quite as lean as the 165-pound body, but my abs still looked reasonable.

54

That weight and size was produced in my mid- to late 20s – a weight I sustained into my early to mid-thirties. I was stuck and accepted that no matter how hard I trained and no matter how much weight I could add to the bar, my muscles would not improve in size, shape, etc. I had what I had and hit my genetic peak – and a good FIVE YEARS of progressively lifting heavier loads with no change. It was around that time that I began working with Mike Mentzer and followed his advice for Consolidation training (as few sets as possible with very low frequency of each exercise once every 14-21 days, and in some cases only every 28 days), which produced very obvious strength increases (lifting proficiency) over the course of my two-year experiment that also produced zero hypertrophy to show for the effort. In fact, my muscles had a very soft and flat look about them, and they appeared less developed although I was lifting heavier weights. I began looking like a powerlifter! (No offense to powerlifters, as some are welldeveloped, but typically not of a ‘bodybuilding’ caliber). By my mid-to late 30s I abandoned Consolidation training and followed my previous HIT-based workouts, and this reinstated my past conditioning and muscle fullness/size, although with no added visual effect. At least I looked as good as I once did. However, even then, as I approached my 40th birthday I began looking a bit flat, as though I was losing muscle. I blamed aging, but really… I’m not sure why I was looking a bit worse as I got older, except to think that my muscles were very well adapted to what I was doing and in retaliation they started to shrink a bit, viz., no need to have them as large as they were, since the stimulus of training was insufficient to keep them at their peak… they lost their ‘peakedness’). At age 40 I then stumbled upon Zone Training, which really has its roots in Stage Reps, a method Dr. Darden mentioned briefly in one of his books. (The concept did not stick in my memory, nor do I recall applying Stage Reps in the past, although I may have in passing.) By working various exercises in different Zone combinations, I experimented with fixed patterns or random patterns to accommodate certain equipment and their force curves. Amazingly I shot up to 198-pounds within a few months, and this brought to light the vital importance of two things: 1) A large number of repetitions (excursions) per unit of time are better than fewer repetitions (while maintaining good form or mechanics), as doing so produced far superior pumps and triggered hypertrophy better than performing fewer repetitions; and 2) Regular and constant variation among workout challenges made it more difficult for muscles to adapt (become used to) the stimulus, which forced more frequent ‘positive’ adaptation (by way of hypertrophy) than maintaining the same training program, viz., a training program should not become a training ROUTINE. Since then I have not produce a lot of muscle size, but I have noticed that my overall shape and bodybuilding appearance have improved, and I’m able to sustain that ‘peaked’ look regularly (in general and between workouts). Some may suggest that it’s nothing more than inflammation, glycogen storage, etc., but I say “SO WHAT?” My muscles are fuller and look better… I look like I body-build, even without drugs, and those same negative Nellie’s don’t have half the physique and are busting a gut on strength gains while making zero change to muscle development and 55

appearance. Nonetheless, I think otherwise when it comes to keeping those muscles peaked in appearance… there is something very specific in effect when it comes to a bodybuilding style of training and how the muscles respond to it. Now, a bodybuilding style of training lies across a very broad spectrum, just like there are so many ways to implement HIT. Obviously I will outline my take on the subject, but while offering a different direction in this book than I have in the past. Most people think of me as being the Zone Training guy, and that I train everything in partials (albeit in different patterns and applications). However, this is not the case, as I do incorporate full-ROM exercise – although I suspect in ways not done by a lot of trainees. It will be those methods I will outline in this book, which can be integrated or alternated with Zone Training (later I do give a few examples of implementing Zone work with Full ROM). On that subject, why would I do full-ROM training if I think Zone Training superior? Well, I don’t think Zone Training is superior per se – I think whatever the muscles are not USED TO is superior. This is what makes both full-ROM and Zone Training superior within their own contexts. If you did Zone Training for a few months, then start applying some of the methods in this book, I guarantee you will experience a hypertrophic response (at the very least, your muscles will peak and look more full than usual). Likewise, if you do regular full-ROM training, or the methods outlined in this book for 2-3 months then get back into Zone Training and then… ‘BOOM,’ either you will build a bit more muscle or you will sustain that peaked look once again. And, of course, there is nothing wrong with mixing and matching Zone Training with the different full-ROM methods detailed herein, whether for different sets/exercises or within the same set/exercise. The more unique the challenge, the better the hypertrophy/peak response, I guarantee. The one pitfall to all this is your brain being fixated on how much weight you are lifting and if achieving any load increases from one workout to the next. Consider that even among steroid users, strength is finite (just as muscle gain is finite). You can only lift so much before you start straining the tissues and joints, before you start cheating the weight, or causing outlying muscles to work excessively in order for a target muscle to sloppily heave-and-ho the weight up and down. With this reality in mind, what happens if you are at a peak in strength, what then? What you must focus on is STRATEGY. What methods are you using and how often are they used and when you should change them; how can you alter your rate-of-frequency or volume (and still stay within your recovery means); what exercises can you rotate, etc., etc. There is such enormous potential in which to challenge the muscles when considering all possibilities that you could train for years without duplicating a single workout! But when it comes to remaining complacent in workout design, while focusing only on weight increases, you will hit a brick wall within months (and if you are an advanced trainee, you already are there… now what!?). This is the time to break loose! I have provided a few training strategies or concepts in this book, which you can modify, and there are some very effective methods in Chapter 3 that can be alternated and mixed-and-matched for a wide range of possibilities. Experiment and come 56

up with your own combinations, as this will be your road to discovery for that ultimate physique. It is ironic that achieving your ultimate body (to obtain that goal) means never knowing where your training will lead, as you stumble upon things that work and things that do not. And once you adapt to the things that work (which happens within weeks, not months), they no longer work as well. They may work to help peak the muscles later on, but they will not work to stimulate further hypertrophy like they once did. Keep that in mind during your journey. And one other thing: there likely will be a few readers who are caught up on very brief workouts, say 2-5 exercises 1-2 times per week. I’m not knocking that approach, but what I ask is that you apply the Challenge concepts in this book ‘here and there’ on some chosen exercises or body parts and feel the difference; and then, eventually, perhaps all the exercises will undertake different Challenges as your curiosity gets the better of you; and then, eventually, you may want to try a slight increase in set volume or frequency, or to start mixing your exercises rather than beating your head against the wall doing the same things over and over; and then, eventually, you will start seeing changes that you never before experienced.

57

3. Rep & Set Challenges I have written several books and articles dealing with Zone Training (working the full ROM in partials and in different patterns), but for this resource I want to focus on full-range application (a few Challenges will include Zone Training). Bear in mind that I have not changed my position on the value of Zone Training, but there are two good reasons to apply regular full ROM training at various times, as explained earlier: 1. If you have been performing Zones or other altered methods (e.g., stutter reps) for long enough (6+ months), you will find the ‘shock’ of full-ROM training very effective. 2. If you have been performing full ROM training for some time, then returning to Zone Training or other patterned methods will produce an effective ‘shock’ to the muscles. Now, what I’m presenting in this book is not typical of full ROM training, but different strategies to make workouts brief and highly effective for BODYBUILDING purposes. Regularly I see people on Internet fitness forums present a workout they are doing or plan to do that is nothing more than a group of exercises for the usual 8-12 repetitions. You won’t find that here. Rather, I will detail workout Challenges, with each used on their own or more than one Challenge integrated in the same workout (how you wish to isolate or integrate these methods will be up to you and your experimentation, and to discover the best combinations or methods that work best for each muscle). As well, many of these applications have enough detail or thought behind them, and so read carefully and visualize what is happening as I cover all the points associated with performance, rest periods, etc. I have applied these methods and fine-tuned them based on optimizing a BODYBUILDING effect, as opposed to a ‘lifting performance’ effect. Certainly you are welcomed to deviate from my recommendations, but at least try what I suggest before doing so. It may take 1-3 workouts to optimize both performance with an appropriate load, but only once you do should a protocol be modified.

58

30-15-8 In a nutshell, this is a light-moderate-heavy application, whereby you perform 30 repetitions in the first set, 15 in the second and 8 (approx) in the third, increasing the load each time and to achieve a wide variety of rep ranges to ‘hopefully’ optimize hypertrophy on various levels. There is nothing magical about 30 reps, whereas the count could be 25 or 35, for example, but this gives a general guideline in which to aim in rep count. I have seen this application crop up more than once, but never have I read proper instructions nor a good direction to realize its full hypertrophic effectiveness (e.g., taking 4-5 minutes between sets comes to mind as one ‘bad’ suggestion). I also have read how some people find the method hard on the joints, which tells me that there is a lot of bouncing, cheating and excessive weights being used. This is how I apply the method:

The 30-Rep Set In the first set of 30 repetitions, select a load that will have you train to about a level 8-out-of10 in effort (10 being a maximum effort to muscular failure), which means the set is becoming somewhat difficult, but a handful reps still possible. Cadence should be approximately 1 to 1.5 seconds up and the same down – working in a controlled rhythm without any jerking or bouncing (this will take approximately 60-seconds to complete, which is not a long set, but within the anaerobic environment and a lot of reps to boot). Cadence is someone quick, yet controlled and smooth. You will find that when working rhythmically you can sense when failure is approaching – movement begins to slow as though moving the weight through molasses; keep this in mind when working higher reps sub-failure for other Challenges outlined in this chapter. Although full ROM reps are do-able, you are welcomed to work within a target zone that produces the greatest tension on a muscle, e.g., middle 2/3 of a lat pulldown. When done, and effort is 8-out-of-10 or less, increase the load next workout (you still can increase the load if over a level 8 in effort, but do so conservatively to avoid maxing out or reduce the rep count below 30). Rest 40-seconds (that’s right, you only get 40-seconds rest, but with effort being only an 8 in the 30-rep set, recovery is rather quick, but the muscles already are experiencing a good pump and some degree of fatigue; for leg training, such as squats, you may need a 60-second rest to get breathing and heart rate under control).

59

The 15-Rep Set For the second set, of 15-reps, select a load that will have you train to about a level 8-out-of-10 in effort. Cadence should be approximately 2-seconds up and the same down – working in a controlled rhythm without any jerking or bouncing and slightly slower than the 30-rep set since you are using a slightly heavier load. Likewise, although full ROM reps are do-able, you are welcomed to work within a target zone that produces the greatest tension on a muscle. When done, and effort is 8-out-of-10 or less, increase the load next workout (you still can increase the load if over a level 8 in effort, but do so conservatively to avoid maxing out). Rest 40-seconds (upward of 60-seconds for big leg exercises).

The 8-Rep Set In this set, definitely stick to full-ROM movement, and make movement even slower (since the weight is heavier and you need to respect it and your potential for injury!). The weight should be so heavy that you can achieve at least 6 repetitions, but not more than 10 (8 reps being the middle-ground). You do not need to reach muscular failure in this set, but definitely work it hard and to the point that you may be able to get out one more repetition, but choose not to. Cadence should be about 3-seconds up and the same down, and obviously in a very controlled manner without any bouncing or jerking. If you can achieve 8-10 repetitions, consider increasing the load slightly. If you achieve fewer than 8 repetitions, then the weight is more than heavy enough.

Additional Performance Notes: The 30-rep set is based on a steady rhythm and a moderate load of approximately 60% of what you typically would use for a heavy exercise set. The 15-rep set also is based on steady rhythm, but slightly slower in cadence than that of the 30-rep set (viz., the more weight you add, the heavier you train, the slower the repetitions); add another 10-20% load over and above the 30-rep set, so that you now use about 70-80% of what you typically would for a heavy set of exercise. The 8-rep set needs to be less than you typically would use for 8 reps when ‘fresh’ since the muscle is pre-fatigued from the initial 30- and 15-rep sets; try 10% less than you normally would use and adjust the weights for all three sets next workout if required.

60

I have found the 40-second rest recommendation (upward of 60s for legs) sufficient and actually ideal. Those with a lot of slow twitch fibers or who may recover quickly may opt for as little as 30-seconds rest. If you are not conditioned to tolerate this, it won’t take long (and keep in mind that I have clients over age 50 and upward of 74 able to do this); often pushing the limits too far on the first two sets is what causes need for longer rests. However, you will not get a superior bodybuilding effect by going heavier, training harder on those initial sets, or resting longer between sets. If performing more than one 30-15-8 sequence for a body-part, do select a different exercise and in order to work that muscle from a different angle (or with a different medium, e.g., free weight, body weight, cable machine, selectorized machine) as this produces a better effect than going over the same exercise a second time. If you perform more than one 30-15-8 sequence, I find a 90-second rest between sequences sufficient, whereas 60-seconds may be cutting recovery a bit short. I have found a maximum of three 30-15-8 sequences sufficient for any body part, and have found such volume appropriate for both large and small muscles. However, if you train associated muscles within the same workout (e.g., biceps with back muscles, whereby biceps work with most back exercises), then likely 1-2 sequences are sufficient. You will find significant load discrepancies if you add a second or third sequence for a muscle group due to the cumulative pre-fatigue caused by a previous sequence or sequences. For example, if you can use 200-pounds in your heavy set (8 reps) in the first sequence on an exercise (e.g., a machine chest press), and you decide to do that same exercise, but as a second sequence, obviously you would not use 200-pounds for the 8 reps and may find the weight needs to be reduced to 150-pounds. That is no exaggeration, as doing a 30-15-8 sequence first, followed by a 30-15 before the 8 reps of a second sequence produces a lot of cumulative fatigue… particularly with only 40-seconds rest between mini-sets of each sequence and 90seconds between sequences. As always, estimate what you think you can use and you always can adjust loads next workout. When dealing with the 30- and 15-rep sets, suppose you select a weight that is too light – you are a bit more than half-way through the set and you know it is not heavy enough to provide a proper ‘level 8’ challenge. Simply reduce the ROM from full to partial and work the most challenging half, e.g., bottom half of a leg press as opposed to the top half or full ROM. Likewise, if finding the weight too heavy, simply work the easier half of the ROM, e.g., top half of a leg press. Adjust the weight next workout. Of course, there is nothing wrong with keeping it on the light side if you want to perform more or all reps in the hardest half, or you can use a heavier weight and focus more or all reps in the easier half. Based on the above, you can see how diverse this one method can be: 

You can perform one or more sequence per body part;

61



 

You can change what exercise is performed, first, second or third (viz., take three exercises and rotate them each workout, as to which is first, second or third in the workout); You can use heavier or lighter loads on the 30- and 15-rep sets and focus more on the easier or harder zones as opposed to full ROM work; and You can mix and match partials and full ROM reps in the 30- and 15-rep sets.

By considering all these factors, you can generate a different workout every time for several weeks or months just with the 30-15-8 method. Also, you can increase the diversity of this approach by selecting different exercises for each set, e.g., if working the back muscles, try a pullover for 30-reps, overhand pulldown for 15-reps, and under-grip close-grip chin for 8-reps. Of course, any exercise combination is fine and relative to your access and setup in your home or commercial gym. Finally, you can reverse the challenge to 8-15-30. Start with 8 reps (which will necessitate a heavier load since it is first, and likely a warm-up to prevent injury), then the 15-rep set (the weight likely will stay about the same), and finally the 30-rep set (which will need to be lighter than if performed first and for obvious reasons of pre-fatigue).

62

Zig-Zag Sets I wasn’t sure what else to call this application, and I’m unsure who has applied it besides me, but it’s a way to incorporate lighter with heavier lifting in a back-and-forth manner. This is a different take on the 30-15-8 that works from light to heavy, from high reps to low reps. The pattern is more like: 30-8-20-10-15 (reps are high… low… high… low… moderate). Set One begins with 30-repetitions with a given load that brings you to a level 8-out-of-10 in effort (this is no different than the 30-15-8 application insofar as effort and loading is concerned); work in a rhythmic manner of approximately 1- to 1.5 seconds up and the same down. Rest 40-seconds. Set Two imposes the heaviest load possible for 6-8 repetitions and a slower cadence of about 3seconds up and the same down; you should reach about a level 9-out-of-10 in effort. You can train to failure, but be aware of how this can affect the other sets and their loading. Obviously you need to increase the weight while resting the previous 40-seconds. Rest 40-seconds. Set Three will have you reduce the weight, but not as light as was ideal for the initial 30-rep set; in this set aim for 20 repetitions, again in a rhythmic manner of about 1.5 seconds up and the same down; work to about a level 8-out-of-10 Rest 40-seconds. Set Four is the second heaviest set (you need to add some weight once again) of about 8-10 repetitions and at a cadence of 2-3 seconds up and the same down; the set should take you to about a level 9-out-of-10 in effort (train to failure at your own risk!). Rest 40-seconds. Set Five requires some weight reduction in order to achieve 12-15 repetitions in a somewhat slow and somewhat rhythmic manner of about 2-seconds up and the same down; aim for a level 9 or 10-out-of-10 in effort (your choice if you want to train to failure or stop a bit short on this final set).

63

Additional Performance Notes: In sum, there are five sets that proceed from light to heavy, then somewhat light to somewhat heavy, and finally somewhere in the middle: 30 – 6/8 – 20 – 8/10 – 12/15. This is not difficult to achieve as most sets avoid muscular fatigue and merely build up toward that moment with a lot of muscle fatigue. The two heavy sets approach fatigue, but should leave some room; the two light sets aim for that good burn and pump, but don’t really approach failure (they only feel somewhat hard and tend to burn more than anything); the final set should be the only one reaching failure, if you decide to push it that hard. On average, I have found two such sequences more than sufficient for any muscle or muscle group; I could tolerate three sequences if it were done infrequently and as ‘shock’ value to push the muscles that extra bit. You may be asking, “how the heck am I to know how much to add or take away on the load reductions or increases?” Certainly you need to make an educated guess, but I hit the nail on the head a majority of the time my first time trying this application. If I know how much I could use for 30 reps when doing the 30-15-8 challenge, then I already have that number. And if I know how much weight I could use for 8 reps in the 30-15-8 challenge, then I also know that I could use a ‘bit’ more for this challenge since those 6-8 reps are done right after 30-reps (and not after a second set of 15 reps). After that I am able to estimate loads rather well – when I try the 20-rep set I am a bit pre-fatigued from the 30-rep light set and the heavy 6-8 rep set, and so I need to use more load than when I did 30-reps, but not a lot more (5-10%). And when I return to the somewhat heavy set of 8-10 reps, the load needs to be less than what I used for 68 reps, etc. Selectorized machines and cable machines are ideal for this application, since you simply need to pull a pin. Dumbbells are very convenient as well, so long as they are fixed (and you don’t have to change loading with collars and wrenches) and you are not in a line-up at the gym to get access to commonly used weights on the dumbbell rack. Barbells are do-able, but you have to work quickly during your 40-second rest to make load changes and get back into position.

64

50-Rep Challenge High-rep challenges have been around for decades. I recall when Kevin Lawrence and Diana Dennis (couples bodybuilding competitors) would aim for 100 reps, usually in a rest-pause fashion (they may achieve 50-60 at first, take a short rest, complete more reps, another short rest, etc., until reaching 100 reps total). Dr. Ken Leistner, a well-known HIT proponent, spoke of a 50-rep challenge, whereby he would work close to failure and toward 20 or so reps… but continue in that fashion until reaching 50 reps total.14 He believed in brutal training, and so it was a persistent battering of the muscles for a handful of reps at a time, constantly hitting failure with short rests between ‘mini-sets’ until achieving that ultimate 50-rep goal. Although I find reaching failure now and again productive and eventual in one’s training, I never found that pushing the limits all the time or too often any more effective for BODYBUILDING purposes than holding back ‘often enough’ in order to achieve more reps, sets and possibly frequency. Pushing the limits all the time (every workout, or with the 50-rep challenge every mini-set) fatigues the body enough that you require additional recovery days, which means less training time or frequency per body part and for the body overall. If you have the mental fortitude then that direction may be ideal, since more intense training means less training tolerated less often, thus making time for other things in life, e.g., work, family, other hobbies. But if you are trying to optimize your BODYBUILDING appearance, then a ‘bit’ of training to failure here and there will go a long way. Understand that if you go to failure some of the time, it has a more profound effect as a stimulus (a combination of enough intensity and more volume) than simply training all-out most of the time. Remember that BODYBUILDING is about working the muscles through enough angles and with enough density in training to achieve that congested fatigue effect, and training to failure on every set of every workout is the surest way to necessitate a reduction in workout density and frequency.

14

Ken Leistner also did this for heavier 20-rep sets, whereby 10 reps brought him close to failure, and he would take in 2-5 breaths between single or double attempts thereafter and until reaching 20 reps total. This often is referred to as a ‘widowmaker’ set and is not the same as I’m proposing here, which is more subdued and less strenuous to the recovery system.

65

Consequently, I have made a point of training only one exercise to full fatigue in any workout, while keeping all other sets at that level 8-9 out-of-10 effort (working hard, but leaving some reps in the tank); and some workouts will have zero sets taken to full fatigue. For those who have been reading my books over the years, and particularly over the more recent years, it should be clear that I’m able to hold back and progress/look good because of my direction toward exercise variation – and by changing workouts every week, with different exercises, different combinations, different ways in which to perform the exercises, I’m able to train very hard (but not to complete failure) all the time, but not necessarily having to reach failure all of the time and still do well. Conversely, if you keep doing the same exercises, in the same order and done in the same way (e.g., straight sets of 8-10 reps), then there is nothing more to do than either add reps or weight – and doing so brings you to the inevitable “I have to reach failure” conclusion. Thus, it is no wonder HIT advocates perform few exercises infrequently… they are pushing the limits all the time or nearly all the time and are unable to train in a pure BODYBUILDING fashion to optimize muscle gains and appearances. Again, BODYBUILDING requires sufficient workout volume and frequency, and to optimize BODYBUILDING requires more of those elements than simply improving workout performance (being able to lift more weight or the same weight for more reps). BODYBUILDING is about training the muscles for that desired peak hypertrophy effect and NOT about how well you do with the numbers… how well you can LIFT weights. I believe that pushing the limits in a conservative manner has a very good effect on the muscles, but it must be used as a method in your training bag of tricks and not as a means to an end (at least in order to get the most effect of that stimulus and to remain within that BODYBUILDING realm of ‘sufficient’ volume and frequency). Now, why am I ranting about all this (having done so a few times in this book)? Well, let’s return to the 50-Rep Challenge concept and look at it from a ‘tolerable’ bodybuilding perspective of muscle fatigue accumulation while training ‘hard enough’ to stimulate the muscles without over-fatiguing the system in general. Here is the direction I have taken with superior effect and without feeling systemically exhausted in the process (I actually find this Challenge enjoyable).

66



 

Use a weight that is about 80% of your usual training weight. And so, if you use 100 pounds for 10 repetitions, then use 80 pounds. At a cadence of about 2-seconds up and 2-seconds down, perform 15-20 repetitions with that weight. Here are some important points: If the weight is appropriate, you will reach a level 8-out-of-10 in effort by the time you achieve 15-20 repetitions (it should start to feel challenging, but leave yourself some breathing room for the other sets, since pushing too hard will hamper your ability thereafter); if you need to work harder than a level 8 in order to get 15 repetitions, stop by the 12th rep and reduce the load for the subsequent sets; if the weight feels a bit light, stop by the 20th rep in any case and decide if you need a bit more weight (sometimes the effort will catch up on the upcoming sets and you always can increase the load next workout). Rest 20-seconds (even with squats, you shouldn’t need more than 20-seconds in order to sustain good effort without feeling winded). For the next (second) set, and every set thereafter, train harder than level 8, but stop 23 repetitions short of failure15 – do NOT train any harder than that, as you need to leave a bit of gas in the tank.

Continue the above pattern; rest 20-seconds between mini-sets, stop 2-3 repetitions short of failure on each mini-set. Once you get to the 50-rep mark on that final set, and you have not reached muscular fatigue, you can terminate the challenge at that point or continue on for a few additional reps (beyond 50) to reach muscular fatigue. And if you happen to not quite make 50-reps by a set (e.g., 48 or 49), it’s not a big deal just to end it there or go for another set to get over the 50-rep mark.

15

If you're not in tune with how your muscles respond, and what it means to ‘leave three reps in the tank,' you can feel this crossroad in your performance. I mentioned this in the 30-15-8 challenge, but it is worth repeating: when training in a fixed rhythm, of about 2-seconds up and the same down, you can sense the movement slowing and the inability to keep up that rhythm cadence. At that juncture, terminate the set.

67

Additional Performance Notes: I prefer a rhythmic approach to my repetitions on this challenge, no slower than 2-seconds up and 2-seconds down; often I may add a half-second pause at the top and bottom of the ROM to keep movement ‘tight’ or move a touch faster (depending on the exercise). Maintaining a steady rhythm helps to optimize how many repetitions you can perform in little time (thus increasing workout density), while producing a superior muscle pump and while reducing gym time. If you are able to reach 20 repetitions in the first set, and effort is no greater than a level 8, there are two options available at your disposal: 1. You can keep the load the same while focusing on increasing reps and/or reducing the number of subsequent sets that make up a 50-rep challenge; or 2. You can increase the load next workout in order to bring the initial rep count closer to 15, and then you can work up the reps on that first set in future workouts (until eventually reaching 20 reps again). Because I mix things up so often in my training, I never had the inclination to record or focus on how many repetitions I was able to achieve in each mini-set, or how many mini-sets it took to get to the 50-rep mark. What I do is record how much weight I did use for the initial set (and whether I had to decrease or increase that load if misjudged) and when that exercise was performed, e.g., first, second or third in a workout. Obviously if I want to perform an exercise first in a workout, whereas it was second last time, then I would need to increase the load accordingly. And the same would be opposite in that an appropriate load for an exercise performed first would be too heavy if performed second or third. I find two such challenges sufficient for any muscle. I may add a third exercise challenge if I want to push the limits, but that’s more an exception. In effect, the 50-Rep Challenge is a cluster training method, a string of sets linked together with short rests between, until eventually reaching the goal of 50 (or so) repetitions to failure (or nearly so). It will produce a lot of muscle fatigue and will feel invigorating IF you don’t push each set to muscular fatigue. And if you find 50 reps too much for a body part, create a 40-rep challenge or some other goal number, e.g., a fast-twitch body part may produce better results by reaching 8-10 reps the first set while working up to 20-25 reps total. Lastly, there is nothing wrong with targeting specific zones during this challenge, such as the bottom half or top half of a leg press; or mixing up full ROM reps with partial ROM reps. Often when working in a rhythmic manner for a lot of repetitions there is a tendency to cut an exercise’s full ROM short anyway, by eliminating the bottom or top few inches.

68

Rest-Pause + Pump I never forgot those trainees who like the feel of heavy loading. And although I apply this method now and again (less often as I get older and wiser to potential injury), I also include a finishing pump sub-set, which I find makes the Rest-Pause application more effective for BODYBUILDING purposes. Some people with high mesomorphic tendencies (an inclination to build muscle easily) produce good effect from heavy lifting; Mike Mentzer was a staunch supporter of Rest-Pause training for that reason. Conversely, most of us mere mortals may find such heavy lifting a decent stimulus only if included now and again and when the muscles least expect it, viz., it has good ‘shock’ value if done infrequently. But if you’re like me, it is ego driving you toward heavy lifting now and again, and you may get somewhat of an effect from it… but it’s the higher-rep training included in the mix that produces better a better result. Now you can have your cake and eat it too! Here is the method:

The Rest-Pause Component Use a weight heavy enough that only 5-6 repetitions are possible. Rest 10-seconds. With that same weight, attempt 4-5 repetitions. Rest 10-seconds. With that same weight, attempt 3-4 repetitions. Rest 10-seconds Attempt 2-3 repetitions. Option: With another 10-second rest, perform three singles with about a 2-3 second rest between. For example, suppose you are doing leg presses and you just did 2-3 repetitions as per the above in your final multi-rep set… after a 10-second rest, perform a single and gently lock the knees for a quick 2-3 second rest, then do another single, followed by another brief lock-out rest, and then a final third single.

69

In regard to performance, each repetition should be at least 2-seconds up and 2-seconds down or even slower (a 3-3 cadence is sufficiently slow and safe). Treat the weight and your body with respect and care when lifting heavy. As well, avoid reaching failure on the mini-sets; train hard, but stop just short, e.g., even if you can do 6 repetitions on the first set, stop at the 5 th if it means reaching muscular fatigue on the 6th. You want the Rest-Pause component of the method to be hard without excessive strain or reaching max limits in effort. Now and again you may reach failure accidentally, and that is all right, but don’t make reaching failure a goal.

The Pump Component After a 30-second rest, and with about a 40% reduction in weight, perform as many repetitions as possible in a rhythmic manner. A cadence of about 1.5-seconds up and 1.5-seconds down is appropriate. You can train this set to failure or close to failure, as you choose. Although the weight is quite a bit lighter, you may find it difficult moving beyond 12-15 repetitions because of the pre-fatigued from the Rest-Pause sets, as well as having only a 30-second rest. If you can achieve upward of 20 repetitions, increase the weight; and if you cannot get beyond 12 repetitions, then the weight is heavy enough; keep working with that load until you can achieve 20 repetitions. Likewise, any heavy lifting should follow a modest warm-up, to prepare mind and body for the upcoming heavier tasks at hand. The warm-up generally should be nothing more than prep work for heavy lifting (e.g., a level 5-out-of-10 in effort), although it can be more challenging and in the form of a pre-pump set prior to heavy lifting. If the latter is done, bear in mind that the heavy weight used for rest-pause obviously will need to reduce because of the pre-fatigue caused by an initial pump set. To keep the pre-pump set within limits of fatigue, use no more than the weight you plan to use for the post-rest-pause pump set.

Additional Performance Notes: A problem associated with heavy lifting is the tendency to over-contract, work or squeeze all muscles or too many muscles relative to the exercise. A barbell curl, for example, becomes a workout for the low back, thighs, shoulders, etc., as you attempt to generate force from other muscles in order to lift heavy loads (often when they are too heavy or when approaching muscular fatigue and you’re trying to maintain force production). This is fine if you are a competitive lifter and you’re trying to get the weights up at any cost, but for BODYBUILDING purposes such over-performance deceives you into thinking the target muscle is doing the work or is able to handle the loading, and such over-performance generates a lot of systemic fatigue (which means needing to reduce workout volume and frequency below optimum peak hypertrophy effects). In sum, be careful how heavy you train during Rest-Pause – go heavy, but pay attention to how hard the outlying, non-targeted muscles work.

70

Extended Rest-Pause & Rest-Pause Clusters Arthur Jones speculated that a muscle can regain upward of 50% of its strength from exercise with only 3-seconds rest. This is not to suggest that another 3-seconds rest would allow another 50% of strength recovery (perhaps only 1% more would be regained, I’m uncertain). And definitely the degree of recovery would depend on how close a person would train to failure, if the set was of low, moderate or high reps, and if the muscle(s) in question were more fast-twitch or slow-twitch. Regardless, I have found 50% recovery in only a matter of seconds to be pretty much spot on in general. Boxers discovered this effect since a 2-3 second huddle during a match gives just enough recovery to keep fighting, which strategy can be applied regularly to good use. Because of this short pause recovery effect, I was curious to discover the relationship of stopping briefly on EVERY repetition in a set. What would happen (how would it feel) if there was a brief respite (e.g., 1 second) after each rep? How long (how many repetitions possible) would a set last if avoiding constant tension and beyond a person’s normal rep count with a particular load? Would the pump be bigger (since there would be time for blood to rush in-and-out)? Would the application offer any benefit different than constant-tension training? There are a few things I will state before clarifying the method. First, it feels different and the method seems to fatigue a muscle differently (insofar as to how it feels within a muscle). Second, the pump is not as full (if resting very briefly after every rep), but there is something different going on in a muscle… even with higher reps (I can’t qualify it beyond that… just a different fatigue sensation). Third, muscles certainly maintain a full look days after, although I don’t think any better than constant tension training. Fourth, I would not say it is superior to constant tension training, but because it is a different environment for the muscles, then in my books it is ‘good.’ OK, much of this is vague, but I thought the method stands on its own to be included. I will address the specifics in execution if resting on every repetition, but bear in mind that I found the variations at the end of this section to be superior (for me); for now, let’s focus on the most simplified version. If you were to use your usual weight for 12-15 repetitions in a regular, constant tension fashion and for whatever exercise, you will find that 25-30 repetitions are possible when performed in an Extended Rest-Pause style with those 1-second breaks between repetitions. This prolongs muscle work, which surely should be a positive factor insofar as muscle inroad is concerned. With an exercise like squats, it did not burn the legs as much (because of the purposeful lockouts of the knees between reps), but I found my breathing took a beating from the force of the bar (250-pounds) across my upper back and that a set of 30-reps lasted 2-minutes. (Two minutes may seem like a long time, but remember that each rep has a brief 1-second rest, and so factor in all the time not working the muscles [30-seconds] and the effect that unloading the muscles have over the total set time, and it’s actually not very long.)

71

The Resting Aspect among Different Exercises If we again consider squats and also an exercise like the leg press, gently locking the knees between reps affords an obvious rest. Locking the elbows on a chest press with dumbbells or a barbell (or with a machine) is not quite as ‘restful;’ although there is some reprieve between reps (you still can feel some tension in the shoulders, arms and pectorals). An exercise like the dumbbell side raise for shoulders gives a decent break with arms hanging completely down along the sides. However, what I do is perform a slight squat (bend my knees with torso leaned back an inch or so, as if starting a Sissy squat) and quickly rest the dumbbells along the top of my thighs. Doing so unloads the shoulders even more than simply allowing the dumbbells to hang freely. When it comes to free weight biceps curls, I will perform the exercise in front of a bench, so that I can quickly rest the weight down on the bench between each repetition. Obviously the movement is fluid and quick, since you perform the curl up, lower the weights (as you squat slightly) to rest them on a bench, and almost immediately lift the weights off the bench and continue for the next repetition, etc. Machine curls are more obvious when resting, since the weight stack touches down for a full second to unload the muscles. With triceps extensions off a cable machine, you merely ease the handle up and to rest the weight stack after the completion of a repetition and then pull the handle back down into place for the next repetition. With a leg extension or leg curl, you pause at the bottom of each rep for that one-second reprieve. With a pec deck exercise you can grasp the wrist with the opposite hand at the point of contraction to take tension off the pecs; and with seated cable pec flyes, I bring my hands down to rest atop my thighs for that super-brief moment and between repetitions. With pulldowns, ease the weight all the way up until the weight stack touches, although with hands still lightly grasping the handles; and if performing chins you can touch a foot down on the floor (or if using a chin-assist machine, ease off the kneeing pad and rest one foot very briefly on the foot platform). I think you get the idea… you need to work fluidly to perform a rep, then to lock out or rest the weight very quickly, and then bring the weight back into position for the next repetition. I presume this is clear without a video demonstration, but simply think of easing off or removing tension for as short a time as possible and as smoothly as possible in that transition, and see how many repetitions you can accomplish with a typical weight. As stated, if you can achieve 15-20 repetitions in a piston-like and constant tension manner, then about 25-30 repetitions in a rest-pause manner are plausible. That’s about one-third as many reps just by resting onesecond between reps.

72

Additional Performance Notes: This is where the method shines, and it surprised me as to the extent of fatigue and burn that can be achieved when performing the method in clusters that involve two or more repetitions at a time. Certainly you can develop any combination, but below are two variations that I like. However, before outlining the protocols, keep mind that I’m still able to achieve more repetitions than usual by implementing those super-brief rest-pauses, and those one-second rests are just enough to keep the momentum going for a unique muscle challenge. As well, keep the movement fluid, rhythmic and piston-like (sharp technique, but without purposely moving slow nor explosively). You will find that eventually movement rhythm slows, and this tells you that you are only reps away from reaching muscular fatigue (in the event you want to push the limits or hold back slightly). Variation One: Very straight forward, work the movement in clusters of three repetitions; after every third rep pause for that one-second break. I like a three-rep count because it’s a very rhythmic and sensible number mentally and physically, although playing around with two or four reps (or whatever number) may feel better to you or some of your muscles. With a typical load I can achieve about 8-10 mini-sets over the course of about 60-seconds. Variation Two: This is a descending cluster approach that proceeds as follows (a one-second break occurs between each mini-set):     

Five repetitions Four repetitions Three repetitions Two repetitions Singles (do as many as you want, but I find 5-6 about right, and when combined with the above mini-sets, the total set time is no more than 60-seconds).

In essence, this variation is like a regular rest-pause set, in that it reduces in the reps possible with the same load, except done somewhat continuously with only super-short breaks added in now and again and more frequently as required to maintain (allow for) more work. If you examine the two above variations, you can see that there could be several more possibilities in repetitions arrangement or combinations, all divided by brief one-second pauses to regain a hint of recovery and to push the set beyond what you typically would do or could do if the repetitions were performed continuously.

73

Multi + Single Rep Combo I presented previous challenges that involve both heavy and light applications within the same cluster of sets, but this one involves both heavy and light within the same monster set. I’ll address some specifics shortly, but here is the basic direction: Light Set 1: Perform three repetitions in a rhythmic manner of about 2-seconds up and 2seconds down. Heavy Set 1: Within seconds, and with more load, perform one rather slow repetition of about 4-5 seconds up and the same down. Light Set 2: Perform four repetitions in a rhythmic manner. Heavy Set 2: Perform another slower and heavier repetition. Light Set 3: Perform five rhythmic repetitions. Heavy Set 3: Perform a slower and heavier repetition. Light Set 4: Perform six rhythmic repetitions. Heavy Set 4: Perform a final heavy repetition.

The overall rep scheme is 3 – 1 – 4 – 1 – 5 – 1 – 6 – 1; there is a few seconds rest (unloading) between each attempt, moving back and forth between the lighter rhythmic reps and the heavier single lifts. As a simple example, consider doing dumbbell biceps curls, whereby 15-pound dumbbells are used for the 3, 4, 5 and 6 rep sets, and 25-pound dumbbells are used for the single, slow and heavy lifts. It will take 2-3 seconds to move from one to the other, which allows for a brief rest between the lighter and heavier sets, but not too long.

74

Additional Performance Notes: Obviously when training alone this challenge works best when using dumbbells or cable/selectorized machines that allow for pin pulling and insertion (to adjust weight differences). However, I’ve done this with squats by combining a sissy squat with body weight and then immediately I would move under the squat bar for the heavier slow lift. When working with a training partner, that person can do some adjusting if required, e.g., adding and then pulling off a plate on plate-loading type of equipment, e.g., Hammer Strength. For the lighter reps, choose a weight that is about 80-90% of your usual weight for 8-10 reps, whereas the heavy can be a bit heavier than your typical weight (to provide enough challenge on those slow and heavy lifts); for instance, if you find 100 pounds heavy for 5-6 reps, then use about the same weight or a touch more (not much more) for the single heavy lifts between the lighter pump reps. How you terminate this challenge can vary:   

You may want to end the challenge with the six rhythmic reps and not bother with the final heavy rep (particularly if you don’t think you can perform another heavy rep in the sequence); You may want to do more than six reps in the final pump set whether or not you add a final heavy lift at the end; or You can finish off with more than one heavy lift.

How you end the set will depend if you guessed the weights right on, of if either the light or heavy loads are a bit light or a bit heavy. You can reach failure or stop a bit short on either or both the lighter or heavier lift at the end of the sequence. When using this method, I like upward of three exercises for a muscle or muscle group – I can tolerate three without any concern for recovery. Finally, it is possible to alter the angle of an exercise and still work with the same weight. For example, you can perform underhand- or neutral grip pulldowns/chinups for the pump reps and then quickly switch to an overhand grip pulldown/chin for the slow and heavier lift. The weight may be the same, but an overhand position is a good 20% more difficult than the neutral or underhand grip, which makes the overhand ‘feel’ heavier without adding more weight. This is what I did with the Sissy Squat vs. regular Back Squat approach mentioned previously. Likewise, consider the dumbbell deltoid side-raise with arms bent in a 90-degree position (as if doing a hammer curl) for the ‘lighter’ reps, and then extending the arms out for the slower single lifts (the latter feels more difficult than the former, although using the same weight). Or how about a regular-style grip bench press coupled with a reverse grip press to work the triceps (the latter is much harder and significantly removes the pectorals from the movement).

75

Leverage Combination In the previous challenge (last paragraph) I addressed how you can combine two movements using the same load, whereas one feels harder and the other is easier based on leverage. Consequently, for this challenge you combine two exercises that involve superior leverage with inferior leverage; they may or may not be a multi-joint (compound) exercise with a single-joint (isolation) exercise, such as combining a dumbbell chest press with a dumbbell flye. Before explaining the application, I will provide examples. Body Part

Exercise Combination

Legs

Smith machine squat + lunge (a Zane Leg Blaster also works very well; this can be done with a regular barbell, but there is risk of losing balance). Deep knee bend + sissy squat (the deep knee bend would have you lean back a little bit while keeping pressure on the toes, whereas the sissy squat would have you pivot only at the knees while leaning back as usual).

Back

Chin-assist machine or pulldown (overhand position) + stiff-arm pullover (this is easier to execute on the chin-assist machine as the tension difference between the chin/pullover is not as significant as with a cable machine). Bent-over barbell/dumbbell back shrug + barbell/dumbbell row (other row machines, whether cable or weight selectorized can be utilized; the shrug consists of pulling the shoulder blades back and together while relaxing the arms, whereas the arms pull and work with the back when rowing).

Chest

Chest press + flye (you can use dumbbells or cables and at various angles).

Shoulders

L-lateral raise + straight arm lateral raise (in the first instance, the arms remain bent at a 90-degree angle… L-shaped… whereas in the second exercise you perform the lateral raise as usual and with arms extended out; either cables or dumbbells can be used). Shoulder press + lateral raise (either dumbbells or cables). Rear pull + rear delt raise (in the first instance perform a rear raise or ‘pull’ with dumbbells or cables and with the arms bent at 90-degrees while focusing on the elbows driving back, followed by a regular straight arm rear delt raise/extension).

76

Body Part

Exercise Combination

Triceps

Cable pressdown + pushdown (in a pressdown, the handle moves up the body as the elbows move up… then you press down using the triceps, delts and pecs (a push-press movement); this is followed by a regular triceps cable extension). Lying reverse bench press + lying triceps extension (using dumbbells, you perform a reverse-grip bench press [elbows along-side the body and an under-grip position], and this follows with a regular hammer-grip lying triceps extension). This can be done with a barbell, but with a reverse grip you are limited by how much weight you can use on a reverse grip lying triceps extension.

Biceps

Drag curl + regular curl (this can be done with a barbell, dumbbells or single/dual cables; a drag curl has you pull and drag the weight up along-side the body, popularized by Vince Gironda [information on its execution can be found on the Net]; of course, the curl that follows is performed as usual).

Forearms

Reverse curl + reverse wrist curl (I prefer these with dumbbells as it allows me to sit, and after performing the reverse curl I then can place my forearms along my lap to then perform the reverse wrist curl). Hanging wrist curl + supported wrist curl (as per above, the dumbbells hang along-side my body for the hanging wrist curl, and then I place my forearms along my lap to then perform the supported wrist curl).

Abs

Lying ab crunch + lying leg raise.

77

Let’s get into some specifics. The above combinations certainly are not new, as trainees have combined these in the past, albeit in the reverse order, e.g., after exhausting with pec dumbbell flyes, they then move into a dumbbell press (low leverage followed by higher leverage). This application does the opposite and integrates the two movements into one set in a back-andforth manner. If we consider the pec dumbbell press + flye, here is the pattern: 1. Dumbbell press x 3 repetitions (performed in a controlled rhythm of about 1.5 seconds up and 1.5 seconds down): 2. Dumbbell flye x 1 repetition (performed slower as the weight will feel heavier for reasons of leverage… 2-3 seconds up and 2-3 seconds down is sufficient); Repeat the above sequence upward of 6 times (this will take about of 60-75 seconds, depending on how quickly or slowly you move)… if you can handle the load for six sequences, it may be time to increase the weight. At this juncture I suspect you realize that you can increase the weight and do fewer sequences, or even perform the sequence in a cluster fashion (three sequences followed by a short break, then another 3 sequences, a short break, etc.). Such variances are perfectly fine. In regard to proper weight selection, I choose a weight that is about 10-20% lighter than my usual weight for the low-leverage exercise. For example, if I can handle 200-pounds on the lunge, I will select about 150-160 pounds for the squat/lunge combo; if I can handle 50-pound dumbbells for pec flyes, then 40-pounds is about right for the press/flye combo. That weight may seem light for the squat or chest press respectively, but as you perform one sequence after another, eventually the load feels plenty heavy and fatiguing.

Additional Performance Notes: If you consider the squat + lunge sequence, they both are multi-joint/compound movements, whereas the chin/stiff-arm pulldown sequence is a multi-joint followed by a single-joint movement. There is no fixed rule in terms of an exercise needing to be multi- or single-joint when combining leverage combinations. This method was placed here as some combinations described previously can be applied to the Multi + Single Rep Combo addressed beforehand. Experiment and have fun!

78

Cadence Variation There are two factors that make this challenge effective: 1. The change in cadence that has muscles move (somewhat) quickly then slowly, then back to more quickly; and 2. The rhythmic pump-out at the end of the sequence. This challenge works best with a metronome or while watching a clock with a second hand, although those very disciplined with a sense of timing could count in their heads (I find this ability a bit dubious as a person tends to move faster than the count requires and as fatigue approaches… and it’s difficult to maintain an even increase or decrease in cadence). Here is the method using a weight that is about 90% of one’s typical for 10-12 repetitions: 

With the metronome clicking at 60-beats-per-minute (or while watching the second hand of a clock), the first repetition is at a 2/2 cadence (two seconds up and two seconds down); the next repetition is 3/3, followed by 4/4, then 5/5 and finally 6/6. Therefore, you perform five repetitions that begin at a 2/2 cadence and end with 6/6. Unless you're doing very short ROM exercises (e.g., wrist curls or calf raises), I would avoid a 1/1 cadence as the speed is a touch fast and not as controlled.



After that set, which takes about 40-seconds, the effort should feel about 7-out-of-10 in effort; it shouldn't be less, but not a lot more (8-out-of-10 at most, feeling somewhat difficult but with room to spare). Rest 30-seconds and adjust the load heavier or lighter if required (in case you under- or over-estimated the loading).



After a 30-second rest, reverse the cadence challenge so that you begin with 6/6, followed by 5/5, 4/4, 3/3 and 2/2.



At the end of the second mini-set, continue with as many repetitions at a 2/2 cadence until reaching muscular fatigue or close to it. If you can achieve five additional repetitions at 2/2 (bringing you to 60-seconds total tension time), then increase the load slightly next workout. If you achieve fewer than 4-5 reps at a 2/2 cadence, the weight likely is heavy enough. I prefer achieving at least five additional 2/2 reps as that pumpout really adds icing on the cake.

79

Additional Performance Notes Certainly you can work beyond the 60-seconds on the final 2/2 rep-out, particularly for muscles that respond well to higher reps. If you like the feel of this challenge, then you can double up on the application on a particular exercise. For example, once done the double mini-set sequence described on the previous page, rest 60-seconds and repeat the process. Here are a few options if you go for an additional sequence: 

With the same load, go for the 2/2 to 6/6 set, which should bring you close to fatigue (rather than a level 7-8 in effort) because of the pre-fatigue caused by the initial sequence. Rest 30-seconds and reduce the load in order to perform the 6/6 to 2/2 + final rep-out (you will need to estimate the load reduction based on the muscle and exercise in question and how deep that fatigue feels). Or…



After 60-seconds go for another sequence, but reduce the load so that the first half of 2/2 to 6/6 feels like a level 7-out-of-10 (and proceed as usual for the remainder of the sequence). Or…



Reduce the load slightly and after 60-seconds rest proceed directly to the latter half of the sequence, being 6/6 to 2/2 + the final rep-out.

With the above options you use the same weight the second time around, but likely will reach muscular fatigue in the first half of the sequence; or do another sequence with a lighter load (same feel, effort and application overall); or the load reduces somewhat, but you only work the second half of the sequence.

80

Reverse Stutter & Flex Combo Most readers likely know what a stutter repetition is, but I will give an example just in case I presume incorrectly. Visualizing the barbell curl, and starting at the bottom/stretched position, curl the weight one-third up (e.g., up 8-inches) and then lower the weight half that distance (e.g., down 4-inches). Next, curl the weight up another third of the way (two-thirds up at this point and another 8-inche stroke), then back down half that distance (e.g., 4-inches). Finally, finish the curl for the remaining third of the way. In effect, the total ROM is broken into three segments and you curl two-steps-up-and-one-step-down on each segment… in other words, up one-third, down part way, up two-thirds, down part way, then finish. Keep that pattern in mind as this method will have you REVERSE the process and then add an intense flex at the end. Let’s take that same barbell curl and start at the top of the movement, in order to perform the negative or lowering phase: 1. Lower the weight one-third, and then curl back up half that distance (e.g., if you go down 8-inches, then curl back up 4-inches). 2. Lower the weight another third way down, and then curl back up half that distance again (e.g., down another 8-inches, and then curl back up 4-inches). 3. Lower the weight the remaining third to the bottom, stretched position. The positive or lifting portion of the movement is next and will last about 3-seconds. 1. At the bottom position, and with muscles (in this instance the biceps) tensed, curl slowly for the first 2-seconds and over the initial third of the full ROM. 2. For the final second, contract/flex as hard as possible for the remaining two-thirds of the ROM and to the top position. Understand that I am not asking you to be ‘explosive’ in the positive or lifting phase. First, I want you to ‘squeeze’ out from the bottom/stretched position and to generate quality tension during the initial few inches, as doing so reduces risk of injury and primes the muscles for a superior contraction. Second, the idea is to flex hard into a full contraction rather than merely jerking or moving a weight quickly. In fact, as with any of the Challenges presented in this book, you are welcomed to ‘flex’ the muscles during the positive portion as explained above, although be aware that doing so increases exercise demands and will necessitate load reductions.

Additional Performance Notes Make certain to pause briefly (a quarter-second or half-second) at every point (at each end of a segment), including the down-and-up motion of the negative stutter; avoid any bouncing or jerking and maintain piston-like machine quality in movement. This can be performed as one long set, or try clustering 2-3 shorter sets (3-4 reps each) with 30second rests between.

81

Tension/Rest Challenge This Challenge really hits hard, and if you apply it to squats, you better have a good set of lungs. The idea is to match rest time with tension time. Here is the run-down: 

 

 

Perform approximately 20-reps in an exercise using a rhythmic cadence of approximately 1.5 seconds up and down (short ROM exercises, such as wrist curls, could be faster). The set should not exceed 30-40 seconds, whether achieving 20-reps or fewer or more. The weight should be appropriate so that you are a few repetitions short of fatigue (maybe 8.5 to 9-out-of-10 in effort). Rest for as long as the above set takes, e.g., 25-seconds, 30-seconds, 40-seconds, etc. With the same load, attempt as many reps as possible, but again save a little effort (do not reach failure). In this set you may get 15 repetitions over 20-25 seconds, for example. Rest as long as it took you to complete the second set; if it took you 25-seconds, then rest only 25-seconds. With the same load, perform a third set, again for as many reps as possible (give or take… see next paragraph). You may get 10-12 reps over 20-seconds approx.

Now, at this point you may want to hold off a bit and go for a fourth set, resting only as long as it took to complete that third set. And at that point, you likely will terminate the Challenge by the fourth set since you barely will make 8-10 reps. As well, you can end the Challenge on the third set and push the limits for a maximum number of reps.

Additional Performance Notes This is fairly straight forward – pump out rhythmic reps that avoid failure (until the final set) and rest for as long as it takes to do a set (and before doing another set). If a set lasts 30-seconds, then you rest 30-seconds, and if the next set takes 25-seconds to complete, then you get 25seconds rest, and so on. Certainly, if you want to take this to the extremes you can keep working in a rest-pause fashion until you are doing nothing more than single attempts, e.g., reps = 20 – 16 – 12 – 8 – 5 – 3 – 2 – 1 – 1. Typically I go for 3-4 mini-sets in my cluster, and usually no more than three exercises per body part trained in this fashion. I tend to favor four mini-sets. A good weight is one that allows at least 15 reps, but not more than 20 (to a point of about 9out-of-10 in effort), although I can achieve upward of 25 reps in 30-seconds on an exercise like the wrist curl because of the short ROM. A longer and more demanding ROM/exercise like Smith machine squats has me down to 15 reps in 35- to 40-seconds.

82

Steady-State Superset Combining high-rep pump sets with heavier and slower reps feels exhilarating! I took this idea a bit further in terms of what exercises I like to combine, as well as the flow of the workout. I’ll provide a general guideline then give some specific examples: Set 1: 20-repetitition pump with one exercise 30-second rest Set 2: 6-8 heavy repetitions 30-second rest Etc. The above repeats two more times (6 sets total, which takes about 6-7 minutes to complete at most); I usually prefer different exercises each superset rather than using the same two exercises/planes of movement. Now, it takes about 30-seconds to perform 20-pump reps and 30-seconds to perform 8 slower reps. Therefore, if you do more than or fewer than 20-pump reps or more than or fewer than 8 slower reps, tension time will be more or less 30-seconds on each. Regardless, I only rest 30-seconds between sets. To clarify this method, let’s consider my chest and triceps workout I did early February 2015. High-incline dumbbell flye @ 30-pounders (bottom half only) x 30-reps (a bit light, but that same load caught up real fast). 30-second rest High-incline dumbbell press @ 70-pounders x 7 full-ROM reps. 30-second rest Medium-incline dumbbell flye @ 30-pounders (bottom half) x 20-reps. 30-second rest Medium-incline dumbbell press @ 60-pounders x 8 full-ROM reps. 30-second rest Low-incline dumbbell flye @ 30-pounders (bottom half) x 15-reps. 30-second rest Low-incline dumbbell press @ 50-pounders x 7 full-ROM reps. And so, I did combine an isolation movement with a compound movement, but there is nothing stopping a person from combining two isolation or two compound movements. I simply prefer the stretch effect of the flyes for the higher reps and the heaviness of dumbbell pressing for the lower reps. Also note that I avoid failure on the pump sets (I stop short 2-3 reps, sometimes more), but will reach failure or close to failure on the heavier sets. Onto the triceps:

83

Reverse grip barbell French (overhead) extension @ 40-pounds x 25-reps. 30-second rest Reverse grip cable pushdown @ 90-pounds x 8-reps. 30-second rest Neutral grip (triceps bar) French extension @ 40-pounds x 20-reps. 30-second rest Neutral grip (rope) cable pushdown @ 90-pounds x 8-reps. 30-second rest Overhand barbell French extension @ 40-pounds x 20-reps. 30-second rest Overhand cable pushdown @ 105-pounds x 8reps. With triceps, I combined the underhand, neutral and overhand positions – free-weight on the first set and cable exercises on the second set. All were single-joint or isolation exercises; I did not integrate compound movements, such as dips or reverse bench presses. Again, the above simply was a choice based on preference and what I thought would feel good.

Additional Performance Notes: With each set lasting 30-seconds, and with 30-seconds rest between each set, there is a nice flow or tempo to this workout without causing labored breathing (although my sissy squat + back squat combination is tough, and that is an example whereby I prefer only two movements back-to-back rather than mixing it up as I did for chest and triceps). Best of all, it takes less than 10-minutes per body part and produces a great pump and feel by combining higher reps with lower reps. Generally, you want to be conservative with the high-rep pump sets, particularly if you use the same weight each time, as I did with the various angled dumbbell pec flyes. The 30-pound dumbbells felt too light at first, but caught up quickly. Those dumbbells were more than heavy enough for the 2nd and 3rd set, although I may use 35-pounders on the 1st set next time I implement this method, and then reduce to 30-pounders. As for the heavy sets, reduce your first heavy set by 10% of what you typically would do for 6-8 reps, since you are pre-exhausting with a pump set, and then expect to decrease loading for each heavy set thereafter. It takes a bit of knowing what you can do or have done in the past along with an educated guess, but I estimated my weights near perfect the first time around.

84

Descending Cluster Here is an example of a basic bodybuilding staple, but with a few twists. A descending or ‘strip’ set refers to a method that involves the removal of weight during exercise in order to continue for more repetitions. For example, suppose you performed 10 repetitions to failure (or close to it) in the leg extension; you would pull the pin from the weight stack and reduce the weight, which would allow you to perform another handful of repetitions (e.g., 3-5). You would continue this for another weight reduction or maybe more. Now, this is very vague, since how many repetitions you get after the initial and heaviest set depends on how much weight you strip off. And how many mini-sets you perform can vary; and how long you rest between minisets can vary (e.g., near-zero or perhaps 5-10 seconds, etc.); and whether you train to-failure or short of failure on any or all sets can vary (which affects how tough the next set will be with a particular load). The idea is that you work hard on a somewhat brief set, reduce the weight and carry on, and eventually stop when you had enough. My cluster approach is slightly different, but the concept remains the same: 



  

I perform 7 repetitions in the mid-range (I cut off the full contraction and full stretch segments), and this is followed up by 1 full-ROM repetition. In total, that is 8 repetitions in the first mini-set, which takes about 20-seconds. This may have me reach failure, but it is not a goal – I aim for a challenging set that makes me work hard, but it matters not that I reach failure (in fact, I prefer not to reach failure and will save that effort for the final mini-set). I rest for 10-20 seconds (I find 10-seconds more than enough, although some exercises are more fatiguing, like squats, and some exercises require a bit more time to remove weight and resume the exercise, like squats). With a weight reduction, I repeat the pattern a second time – 7 mid-range repetitions followed by 1 full-ROM repetition. After another brief rest, I repeat the brief rest followed by a set of 7 mid-range reps and 1 full-ROM repetition a third time. After a brief rest and a final weight reduction I perform a fourth and final set. This fourth set may be like the others, but if ability allows me I will perform more than 7 midrange reps and possibly more than 1 full-ROM rep, depending on the weight, my energy levels, etc. Regardless, I aim to finish off the sequence with this final mini-set.

Now, I also may opt to finish off the set differently, such as performing a set of stutter reps, or a set of Zones, my favorite being working the most difficult half of the ROM (e.g., bottom half of a leg press) to about a level 8-out-of-10, followed by the middle-third to a level 8-9 out-of-10, and finally the easier half to a level 9-10 out-of-10. There are dozens of ways in which to finish off the final set, and so it’s like combining the descending method with whatever other method you enjoy or find effective. And with the other methods outlined in this book, try to work the muscles fairly hard while maintaining a good pace, and save any to-failure training for the odd set in some of the workouts, and not as a ‘must have’ in your training. 85

Additional Performance Notes: Certainly you can do more than 7 mid-partials followed by 1 full-ROM rep. I tend to keep it around the 8-rep mark total since 8 reps typically is on the ‘low end’ of bodybuilding application, and since I’m stacking this with other sets I find it enough, but not too much. I tend to rest for five somewhat quick breaths (I don’t huff and puff quickly, but I don’t do long, belabored breaths either); without watching the clock, this works out to about 10-seconds. With some exercises I tend to move a bit faster and if I need to make the next weight drop a little more challenging (since the previous set may not have been that difficult). Now, in regard to the last point, there are times I misjudge the weight. If I select a starting load that is too heavy, I simply stop the set, adjust the load and resume. More often than not, however, I tend to be more cautious and will select a load that is a bit on the light side. When that happens I can do a few things: 1. I can stay with the same weight and use that load for my second mini-set, before having to reduce it for my third mini-set. 2. I can shift my tension to a slightly more challenging ROM, e.g., shift my ROM down an inch or so more in the leg press so that it feels more challenging with that weight. From there I estimate how much weight should come off for each subsequent set and if the starting weight needs to be adjusted next time I apply this method. And if a weight is too heavy on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th set, then I shift the tension a bit more into the easier part of the ROM. In effect, don’t be too concerned about not getting the weights right on any of the sets; improvise the tension points and adjust next time. Finally, as you can tell, this is more of a ‘cluster’ method than a true strip set. When I train clients with strip sets, generally I try to make it so heavy that only 6-8 reps can be achieved in good form and close to failure, and then I reduce the load with near-zero rest as they continue for another 2-3 reps, and then I give them a third and final mini-set with a bit less load for another 2-3 repetitions. Overall the client will achieve 10-15 repetitions, a typical rep number, but produce far greater fatigue and muscle inroading than with a typical set. The Descending Cluster method is more paced (with slightly longer rests between mini-sets) with greater repetition volume, which is neither superior nor inferior… simply different.

86

Alternating Repetitions There certainly is nothing very inventive about this application, but it feels different, it pulls on the muscles differently (since there often is slight changes in body positioning throughout the set), and I simply like the feel of it. In a nutshell, you work the limbs/parts in a see-saw fashion with or without statics. I’ll explain each variation to clarify. Method One: Suppose you are performing a dual cable pulldown – there is a separate handle and weight stack for each side of the body. Begin by pulling down both handles, with the fully contracted position being the starting and ‘holding’ point. With the left arm remaining where it is, extend the right arm up and then back down to work the right lat. With the right arm now locked into static position, extend the left arm up and then back down. And so, while one arm (lat) is working through an eccentric and concentric action, the opposite arm (lat) remains in place under static tension. Method Two: Still seated at the dual cable pulldown station, extend the right arm up as the left arm remains in place, in the fully contracted position and under static tension. This time, as the right arm begins to pull down (and concurrently), the left arm releases up on the eccentric; by the time the left arm reaches the top stretched position, the right arm is all the way down. And as the right arm begins releasing to the stretched position, the left arm begins pulling down. And so, both arms work in a steady back-and-forth manner with no static holding. Is one method better than the other? Not really, although whatever you’re not used to generally is better for muscle disruption. Consequently, try both in the same workout or each in different workouts. Also be aware that this method often is a bit more challenging than typical reps done with limbs in unison, and so reduce the weight slightly until you get used to the coordinating requirements. There are a number of exercise possibilities, although you are limited by your exercise choices and equipment. Body Part Legs

Exercise The most obvious example would be the walking lunge with dumbbells, whereby one leg (the forward leg) receives the majority of tension, although the rear leg works to some degree. If you have a leg extension or leg curl with independent leg pads, you can work each leg back and forth. If the machines are fixed by one leg pad, you can have one leg remain relaxed and hanging while the other leg works, or you can have both legs remain in contact with the pad, but while emphasizing tension (90% loading) on one leg at a time and on alternating reps (this certainly is not exactly as described above, but it gives an effect of working back-and-forth). As per the leg extension example above, the same can be applied with a leg press (narrow foot position) whereby one leg receives emphasis working upthen-down, then the majority of tension shifts to the opposite leg for the next rep (of course, the same can be applied to various forms of calf raises). 87

Body Part Back

Chest

Shoulders

Biceps

Triceps

Forearms

Exercise Dual cable pulldowns or dual cable rows; any machine that has independent arms for pulldowns or rows will work. Dumbbell pullovers (a dumbbell held in each hand with a neutral or hammer grip). Chin-ups (best to use a chin-dip assist machine as the body will shift from side-to-side as each arm pulls in its direction, to the left or right). Dumbbell presses and flyes, cable chest presses and cable flyes (if performing Method One with a static hold, you can maintain a stop position at the point of stretch or contraction – be aware that a holding position at the point of stretch is more challenging, but also more strenuous on the shoulder joint). Machine pec flyes (I own a Nautilus 10-degree chest flye, and each arm is independent to allow for this application). Dumbbell and cable raises (front, side or rear); obviously holding the arm out for a static hold while the other arm works up-and-down is a heck of a lot harder than allowing it to hang; adjust weight accordingly. Machine delt-raise/press with independent arms. Dumbbell overhead presses. Dumbbell and cable curls (likely the most common ‘alternating’ exercise is the dumbbell curl, and I simply applied the idea to other exercises for this challenge). Lying dumbbell extensions and overhead French dumbbell extensions. Dumbbell kickbacks. Dip assist (work off one arm at a time, placing tension emphasis on the right triceps, then the left triceps working back-and-forth; obviously this can be applied to dips for the pectorals). A dual cable machine with independent handles allow for alternating triceps pushdowns. Dumbbell wrist curls (along the lap or hanging along your sides) and reverse wrist curls with dumbbells. Dumbbell reverse curls and hammer curls. Rope twist exercise (this is an alternating exercise since each grip turn/twist [right or left] is done independent of the other).

88

I want to go over a workout I did for chest (in a see-saw alternating fashion with no pausing) to give some idea of what I did. In fact, I never planned on doing what I did, but the pace was quick enough and things felt good enough that I doubled up on my sets and performed the following twice: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Nautilus 10-degree flye High incline dumbbell press Cable decline flye Low incline dumbbell press

Most of the above exercises lasted about 45-seconds (one lasted 60-seconds), achieving 16-20 reps per side. I took the same amount of rest between each exercise as it took me to perform, e.g., if the Nautilus flye took 60-seconds to perform, I took a 60-second rest, and if the high incline dumbbell press took 45-seconds to perform, I took a 45-second rest). I trained short of failure by 1-2 reps per exercise. Once having completed the sequence I felt invigorated, so after a 60-second rest I did it all over again, and my tension times dropped a bit (since I used the same weights or only slightly lower) to 30-45 seconds per exercise with equal rests between. Going over the four exercises twice only took about 10-minutes total training time, which is my ‘usual’ insofar as it being an ideal amount of training for a body part. The above is one example, whereas I could have done a 2-3 set cluster on each exercise before moving onto the next exercise. Or I could have reduced the number of exercises and done additional mini-sets per cluster, another circuit of three exercises, rather than the four above, etc. So many options!

89

Full + Burns Combo Certainly everyone knows what a full ROM rep is, and I suspect most of us know what burns are. If not, they are those little partial reps performed at the end of a set (they are partials because you no longer have sufficient energy/force to do full ROM reps). For example, suppose you are performing leg presses and are nearing failure – you may or may not be able to complete another rep or two, but decide to finish the set with partials at the top end of the leg press (where leverage is best). You execute 10-20 of those in rapid succession (the number of burns are not cut into stone; rather, you simply perform a group of them until feeling you had enough). Burns can work at the point of contraction (top of a leg press) or point of stretch (bottom of side dumbbell deltoid raises) – any place where there still is ability to execute a group of shortROM reps at the end of a set. When it comes to this Challenge, the burns are not at the end of the set, but intermixed with the full ROM reps, and so it matters not if you do them at the point of contraction or stretch, although most exercises feel better at the point of contraction. OK, here is the method using the leg press as an example (although biceps curls, chin-ups, chest presses, etc., can be substituted accordingly): 1. Perform one full ROM rep in the leg press – all the way down and all the way up. 2. At the top position, perform 4 partials or Burns That is the sequence that will repeat (one full + 4 burns/partials), but I need to explain a few things, including how to make use of this Challenge. First, the stroke length of the Burn depends on you; it may be only a few inches (consider the full ROM length of a calf raise), or it could be upward of 4-6 inches (consider a machine pullover). Generally the stroke length is not that long, but you want to go by feel in regard to the groove and tension of the exercise. Second, don't merely push and pull the load when doing Burns, but try to flex or squeeze the targeted muscle(s) to experience short but quality contractions. Third, exactly where you perform Burns also is a personal matter. With the leg press, if you get too close to knee lock-out, the tension may be too low, and so perform Burns about 90% up and not all the way up. If you consider the deltoid dumbbell side raise/lateral, I like burns toward the bottom, but all the way down (arms hanging straight) reduces tension too much, and so I will perform those Burns almost all the way down (again, about 90% of the way).

90

Forth, how much weight you use will depend on how many sequences performed in one continuous set, or if performing a cluster of sequences… as well as the location of those Burns within the ROM. Just because I prefer Burns at the bottom of delt side raises doesn't mean you have to do them there – you can do them at the top or in the middle of the ROM, but obviously the amount of weight you can use varies significantly based on positioning and leverage.

Additional Performance Notes: Now, when it comes to performing the Full + Burn sequence (1 + 4), it will take about 30seconds or a bit longer to execute four (4) sequences. Therefore, 6-8 sequences in succession should be more than enough for any muscle. At the end of that set you always can perform additional Burns or even additional full ROM reps, and so experiment to see what feels best. Although I sometimes do a continuous set, I do prefer the Cluster method:   

I perform 4 sequences of 1 + 4, which takes about 30-40 seconds at most as explained above. I rest for 30-seconds. I repeat the above for another two mini-sets of four sequences (three in total) along with the required 30-second rests between each mini-set. (Don't confuse the terms used – a sequence refers to the pattern [1 full ROM + 4 Burns], whereas a mini-set is a number of sequences executed, and a cluster is the number or group of combined minisets.)

As well, there's nothing saying you cannot limit the cluster to only two sets (whereby the second set consists of four sequences… or more if preferred). And there's nothing saying that you have to stop at three mini-sets total – if you find a muscle has very good endurance and is stimulated best by higher volume training then go for 5-6 mini-sets in a cluster. I have included multiple applications in one workout, such as a continuous set for squats, a double-set cluster (two mini-sets) in the Roman chair squat, and a triple-set cluster (three minisets) in the leg press. Then with a leg curl exercise I included all three applications (one long set, a double-set cluster, and then a triple-set cluster)… obviously with a minute or so rest between each challenge. Lastly, do not under-estimate the effect of those little partials. They may seem easy at first, but they build up fatigue over time, and they particularly add to the fatigue, effect and challenge for each of the full ROM reps.

91

Full + Zone Combo Although this book deals with some of my favorite full-ROM methods, here are examples of how you can mix full ROM repetitions with Zone or partial repetitions. I would use a weight that is about 80% of typical load for 10-12 repetitions. Let's consider the leg press exercise:       

With the weight at the top (legs extended) in the starting position, perform a full ROM rep all the way down and all the way back up. Return to the bottom position and perform three repetitions in the bottom third of the movement. Ease the weight back down to the bottom and press the weight all the way up (a full ROM rep). Ease the weight down into the middle third of the full ROM and perform three repetitions in that zone. Return to the weight to the bottom position and press the weight all the way up (a full ROM rep). Now at the top position, perform three repetitions in the top third zone. Finish the sequence with a full ROM rep (perform multiple full ROM reps if desired or necessary and to bring the muscles closer to fatigue).

And so, what we have is a full ROM rep at the beginning and ending of the sequence, and with a full ROM rep sandwiched between each zone (bottom third, middle third and top third). This sequence takes only about 30-40 seconds, and so you can continue for another sequence without any rest... simply continue through the process a second time. However, I prefer applying the cluster method to this challenge, taking a 20-30 second rest between and repeating the sequence a second and perhaps a third time. In order to complete it a second or a third time, the weight needs to be appropriate (you will need to reduce the loading in order to accommodate the fatigue generated by each sequence). Visually, this is what the challenge would look like (black represents a full ROM rep, whereas grey represents Zone partials):

92

Variations on a Theme OK, the above instructions address the application of Thirds or three zones. You also can do this in Halves (two zones = bottom half & top halves) and since you perform fewer zones (two vs. three), thus producing a shorter set you can do more than three repetitions in each half. However, I prefer the back-and-forth method, whereby I perform three reps in the bottom half, then three in the top half, then back to the bottom half for three reps, then finish in the top half for three reps. Don't forget to start and end the sequence with a full ROM rep, and to include a full ROM rep between each half. Visually, the sequence would appear like this:

Again, I may perform this two or three times with 20-30 second rests between sequences. Now, if you do three sequences, whether using thirds or half zones, then here's an idea to combine the zones into one extended cluster:     

In the first sequence set, perform halves with the full ROM reps, working the bottom half, then top half, then bottom half, then top half. This will take about 40-seconds. Rest 30-seconds. In the second sequence set, perform thirds... bottom, middle then top along with the full ROM reps. Rest 30-seconds. In the third sequence set, combine halves & thirds... bottom half and top half, then bottom third, middle third, and finally top third (and, of course, any full ROM reps along the way). Add any additional full ROM reps at the end of this set and as desired to finish the muscle.

93

Visually, the sequence would appear like this:

Additional Performance Notes There is a little bit of thinking and coordination, as you move from a full ROM rep to partial or Zone reps, but the thing I'm most critical about is the quality and performance of those partial Zone reps. Nearly every time I see a person perform Zones, there is some form of sloppiness. The weight may be dropped a bit hard, then snapped or bounced back up, viz., a jerky effect in movement quality. When performing Zones, and because they are short, a 1/1 cadence or a bit slower is more than fine. However, add a half-second pause at both top and bottom of each Zone to avoid uncontrolled movement or bouncing. You want to move like a precision machine squeezing the weight up and easing it down with full control while maintaining a rhythm and without moving unduly slow.

94

Fractal Stutters This is another Zone-type challenge that still applies movement throughout the full ROM, but done in small segments and while applying a Stutter Rep theme. There are many ways in which to apply this method, but I will give a general example in which to follow, then address where you can alter the Challenge. First, be aware of what a Stutter Rep is, which was explained previously when doing the ‘reverse Stutter.’ To recap, visualizing the barbell curl, and starting at the bottom/stretched position, curl the weight one-third up (e.g., up 8-inches) and then lower the weight half that distance (e.g., down 4-inches). Next, curl the weight up another third of the way (two-thirds up at this point and another 8-inche stroke), then back down half that distance (e.g., 4-inches). Finally, finish the curl for the remaining third of the way. OK, next, we address the fractals or micro-rep portion of this Challenge: 



 

Starting at the bottom of the biceps curl, perform three very small contractions of about 2-3inches in length. On the third little rep, curl a bit higher as though to curl the barbell into the next Zone. Continue for three little reps in that area and, again on the third little rep, squeeze it up a bit higher into the next Zone and perform three little reps there. By the time you are done three little reps each in those three little Zones (a total of nine micro-reps) you are up only one-third of the full distance. At that point, lower the weight back down slightly (e.g., if you managed to lift the weight up 8-inches total over the course of those three short Zones, then lower about 4inches down). Repeat this process for the middle-third of the full ROM, viz., another three little Zones and three micro-reps in each (again, nine micro-reps total). Lower back down part way (e.g., 4-inches) and repeat this process for the top-third of the full ROM to complete the Challenge.

Visually, the sequence would appear like this:

95

By completing three micro-reps per Zone (and a total of nine short Zones over the full ROM), it should take 40-45 seconds. Consequently, I find one such application sufficient before taking a break and moving on to a different exercise, a different challenge, or different body part. You can complete more than one Fractal Stutter Challenge per exercise, for a 2-3 mini-set cluster (30-45 seconds rests between each Fractal Stutter), or you can train heavy enough to finish off with one set only. Now, if you were to perform only two micro-reps per Zone it would take you less than 40-45 seconds to complete, and a second Fractal Stutter can be completed right away for a longer set. Or you can apply the Cluster method with shorts rests (e.g., 30-seconds) between each sequence. If you were to perform more than three micro-reps per mini-zone, then you would have a set that would exceed 40-45 seconds. Play around with the Challenge and determine what works best.

Additional Performance Notes This Challenge requires a lot of control and squeezing, being careful not to over-shoot your distance while keeping the micro-zone lengths short and within a few inches each. Most people have difficulty with this Challenge because they are so used to longer strokes, which suggests you should ease off on the load from what you are used to until you become accustomed to squeezing off micro-reps. Be careful not to jerk and bounce those little reps – focus on flexing the targeted muscles as though you are not working against any resistance. There’s plenty of mind control required to maintain good muscle control. With some exercises, particularly if loaded too heavily, it is easy to over-shoot those short Zones (e.g., after completing the middle third stutter section, you may be 2/3 way up or higher). If that happens, simply lower deeper than usual for better positioning on the final and top third Zone. I prefer doing only 2-3 micro-reps per zone and saving some energy/time to do a final full rep pump-out at the end of the set, usually at a very rhythmic cadence of 1.5 seconds up and the same down. Doing so further accentuates the effect of combining Zones with full ROM reps. As well, another preferred method of mine is to include a full ROM rep between each third. In other words, after working three little zones with three reps each (you now are up one-third the way), perform a full ROM rep, all the way down and all the way up. From the top position, shift into the middle third for another three little zones (and 9 little reps), then all the way down and all the way up for a full ROM rep. Finally, at the top third complete the final three little zones (and 9 little reps), then end with as many full ROM reps as desired. Of course, you can reduce the reps per mini-zone to only two in each, or increase it to four, etc. Experiment and determine the set tension time and rep count that makes each body part respond best.

96

A Word of CAUTION on Loading Load is important, and being able to increase load when possible ensures better progress (as per the Principle of Progressive Loading); however, doing so needs to be kept in check and within a context of safety and productivity – as well as an ‘need’ as opposed to a belief that load needs to increase. Although load is important, it is no more important than intensity of effort, or set/rep volume or frequency. Without any of those things load means nothing and cannot exist… and without load the same is true of the other elements – it's a total harmonious package that must be considered in any exercise program. In that regard, basic weight training (a general goal of improvement in function and body image) is more straight-forward than bodybuilding (attempting to optimize development), the latter of which has its own unique experiences and demands that are over-and-above general weight-training exercise. With bodybuilding, it is the overall training experience of trying to achieve that unique challenge imposed on the muscles, which means more than simply how much you lift and for whatever number of repetitions. That message should be clear by this point and painfully obvious if you've been looking the same for months on end with little or no change (or even looking worse!). Consequently, part of that overall experience is being able to challenge the muscles with sufficient loading but relative to what challenge is being imposed, e.g., Zone Training, the 30-15-8, Rest-Pause + Pump, etc.; and so, here are some key points on load selection/increasing in a bodybuilding environment. First, there is nothing wrong with a bit of body 'English' on some reps, so long as form does not get lost in the mix over time. Maintain quality mechanics and, as important, quality tension, viz., visually a person can appear as though s/he is training as strict now as in previous workouts, but the tension quality can reduce in targeted muscles as the load becomes too substantial to sustain and as the internal milieu alters how a load is being lifted. Consequently, use good judgment insofar as how often and how much loading should increase based on quality of movement and targeted tension. Here are some further points to consider on this matter. Suppose you are doing the 30-15-8 method, but on the final set you barely can achieve 6 repetitions. Obviously adding more load to either 30 or 15 will increase effort/fatigue on those sets, which then have an effect on the final set (whereby you likely will not achieve 6 repetitions or may do so at the expense of quality form and tension). But suppose you can achieve at least 8 repetitions on that final set and feel you may be able to do 9-10 repetitions next time. Well, you have a few options: 1. You can increase loading on that final 6-8 rep set; or 2. You can increase loading on either or both the 30- or 15-rep sets.

97

Now, why did I not suggest adding loading to all three sets? Certainly if you did not train that hard on the 30- and 15-rep sets you could likely add a bit of weight on all three, but since one set has a bearing on the next, adding load to the 30 or 15-rep set has that cascading or trickledown effect that should give some pause for consideration. Thus, the harder and heavier you train on the higher rep sets, the more challenging the same weight on the final heavier set of approximately 8 reps will be. Consider this as well: Even if you don't add load, but work a harder zone for more reps in the 30 and/or 15-rep set, doing so can make the final 8-rep set that much harder and sometimes to the point of reducing its repetition count. Remember what has been stated in this book and in others I’ve penned… it's not how much weight you use, but how you use it! Hence, we have more than one choice in order to make training more challenging: 1. More loading; and 2. Make a set more difficult by how you use the load. Neither approach is superior to the other, just different (option 2 generally is easier on the joints, although it depends on the exercise and its leverage). OK, let's explore the concept of a ‘set relationship' a bit further. If you did two 50-Rep Challenges for a body part then you get a good sense of how one Challenge influences the other and whether you can add load to one or the other (you make your decision based on rep count among the mini-sets, if you were able to work a harder zone for more reps, if you were forced to move into an easier zone for more reps, etc.). But suppose you decided to combine Challenges, so that you start with the RestPause + Pump and then the 50-Rep Challenge. You very well may know the right weight for the Rest-Pause + Pump, since it is first (and you did it in a previous workout), but may not know the influence it has on a subsequent 50-Rep Challenge. After all, a load that may be appropriate for a second 50-Rep Challenge (if following a previous 50-Rep Challenge) may be too heavy or too light when it follows a different Challenge. This will depend on how a particular body part responds to the nature of a Challenge and this response can vary among body parts and individuals. But not all is lost, nor should this seem confusing or frustrating. Let's suppose that a weight is too heavy for that 50-Rep Challenge after following the Rest-Pause + Pump; well, you can do a few things: 1. Stop short on your first mini-set (e.g., 10-12 reps rather than the recommended 15-20) and reduce loading for the remaining mini-sets; 2. Spend more time in the easier zone in order to achieve eventually those 50reps (e.g., top half of a leg press); or 3. Reduce the challenge to 30-40 reps. In effect, improvise at the moment and then adjust loading next time if required.

98

4. How’s this for Variation? You can have a lot of variation and still be able to record results (for those fixated on quantity and on how much is being lifted as opposed to the quality of the training experience). Let’s take the upper back muscles and three exercises as an example, say the lat pulldown, dumbbell pullover and bent barbell row. You could do something as straight forward as this: Lat Pulldown 30-15-8

Dumbbell Pullover 30-15-8

Barbell Row 30-15-8

In the next workout you could start with the dumbbell pullover, followed by the barbell row and then the lat pulldown; and in the third workout start with the barbell row, followed by the lat pulldown and finally the dumbbell pullover. Thus, just by using the 30-15-8 challenge you have three workouts that are different insofar as what exercise receives priority and before repeating the same workout sequence. Now, that’s a pretty tame example, but you get the point of how the numbers could be recorded, and yet there is some element of variation. Let’s look at a more complex example: Lat Pulldown 30-15-8

Dumbbell Pullover 50-Rep Challenge

Barbell Row Rest Pause + Pump

And so, if you were to rotate the above exercises once again (with the rep challenges remaining in the same order), each exercise would have a different challenge over the course of three workouts before the same combination repeats, as per the following: Barbell Row 30-15-8

Lat Pulldown 50-Rep Challenge

Dumbbell Pullover Rest Pause + Pump

Dumbbell Pullover 30-15-8

Barbell Row 50-Rep Challenge

Lat Pulldown Rest Pause + Pump

99

In this manner, you can provide yourself or a client (if a personal trainer) a unique challenge over the course of three workouts before repeating the same workout a second time to see if there is any ‘load’ or performance improvement and while reducing adaptation a lot more than doing the same things over-and-over every time. Now, how much more complex can this become? Consider the following possibilities: 1. Keep the same three exercises in the same order (e.g., pulldown, pullover and row), but rotate through all the different challenges presented in this book (all three exercises get all the same challenge, but the challenge changes each workout); or 2. Keep the same challenge each workout, for as long as desired, but with each workout change the three exercises performed for that body part; or 3. Keep the same three exercises in the same order, but each exercise will have a different challenge each workout – keep rotating the challenges until you work through each one once, twice or as many times as desired; or 4. A more complex example of the second point, keep the same challenge each workout, but rotate through as many difference exercises for that body part (e.g., three at a time) as you can think, viz., various grips of pulldowns, chins and rows, different types of shrugs and deadlifts, different types of pullovers; or 5. Rotate the challenges and exercises each week without any repeats, and keep this going for as long as you can. Let’s have some fun and consider the fifth option with this sample workout strategy: WORKOUT 1

Dumbbell pullover 30-15-8

Overhand grip pulldown Zig-zag reps

Undergrip barbell row Rest-pause + pump

2

Barbell pullover 50-Reps

Neutral grip chin Multi + single reps

Overhand grip dumb row Cadence challenge

3

Undergrip chin Full + Zones

Nautilus row 30-15-8

Dumbbell shrug Zig-zag reps

4

Cable row Rest-pause + pump

MedX pulldown 50-Reps

Nautilus pullover Multi + single reps

5

Stiff-arm cable pullover Cadence challenge

High cable row Full + zones

Barbell shrugs 30-15-8

6

Neutral grip pulldown Zig-zag reps

Deadlift Rest-pause + pump

Neutral grip dumbbell row 50-Reps

Etc., etc., etc.

Now, if you fully grasp what has been stated thus far, it should be evident that you can create sufficient variation along with some stability and note-keeping in regard to weights and reps. As well, and your head may be spinning, you can create so many exercise and challenge 100

combinations, as shown in the last chart example and just from the ideas presented in this book, that you could have a different and unique workout each time and without repeating for years! Keep in mind the following: I stopped creating combinations in the example after six workouts (just to give you an idea of what could be done); 1. I did not apply all the Challenges; 2. None of those exercises experienced the same Challenge; 3. Consider combining challenges so that you perform alternating reps in the 30-15-8, or the Full + Burns in the 50-rep challenge or the Reverse Stutters with the Tension/Rest combo, etc. Get the idea? But we’re not done… Now, combine the Challenges in this resource with all those in my other books (particularly all the Zone Training and Tri-Angular Training possibilities, as well as those in the Variation book) and you could almost train a lifetime without ever having to repeat the exact same workout! Anyone who claims s/he is bored of exercise no longer has an excuse. I do understand that some people are afraid to experiment, since they feel bound to the numbers of how much they can lift for a straight-forward 8-10 reps or whatever the number. I guarantee that the more you play with different exercises and methods of performance, the easier it is to estimate how much load is appropriate for any given challenge or method and your attention redirects to the quality of the training experience rather than the quantity of weight and reps. I’m able to do this with myself and clients without even having tried a method (an idea that simply is in my head) merely by visualizing what is required and based on past experiences of other patterns of movement. As well, the more you focus on the quality of the training experience and trying new things, the less likely you will be to record sets, reps, tension time, etc., as you become more in-tune to what constitutes effective training on an eclectic and freestyle basis.

101

Like anything, going into the gym and simply going for it is a skill, but you do not get good at it without practice. And the more intimate you become with your training, the easier it is to problem-solve a client’s needs as well. For instance, if you can handle 100-pounds in an exercise for 12 full-ROM repetitions, then 70-pounds may be an obvious choice for 30 reps in the 30-15-8 challenge. And if it is not, then you adjust a bit up or down next workout, right? Nothing scary about that, and once you get a feel for what you can do and the weight required it doesn’t take much to estimate pretty darn close for a client simply by relating your own experiences. You will find that certain challenges feel better for certain body parts; the same is true when it comes to what exercises you choose and what medium (free-weight, cable or machine) is used. This is not to suggest that each of these challenges will not feel good or produce results, but that the degree to which you experience results will vary. Mix, match and have fun. Now, if you think or believe that unique challenges and regular variation in training has no effect on muscle development or being able to peak the muscles (and keep them looking better for longer), then keep doing the same things over and over while focusing on weight/load increases, and don’t forget to send me those before-and-after photos showing all your great progress. Heck, just send me a photo in general and show that you actually look like a BODYBUILDER. At the very least, and no matter the choices involved in program design, there needs to be some degree of variation of exercises (a rotation of exercises performed at different angles) in order to prevent injury. Thus, what I am proposing at the very least is a change of exercises/angles you perform every 3-6 workouts to avoid overuse injuries. Too much repetition of the same movement patterns, and particularly while under load and progressing the load as often as possible (in the mistaken belief that more muscle and better function will produce) always will exceed tissue remodeling times and lead to tendonitis, tight fascia and even more serious complications. Few people will have knee or shoulder problems if performing Smith machine squats and barbell bench presses; but do those exercises too often (with ‘often’ being relative to an individual), and joint soreness likely will ensue; then trying to get rid of that problem can take weeks or months. Conversely, selecting a wide variety of exercises, and always altering exercise choice, angles and methods of lifting (e.g., stutter reps, Zone Training, etc.) stimulates muscles and joints from many angles and in different ways. Doing so balances joint function/strength while avoiding excessive use of the same planes of movements.

102

In fact, I believe whole-heartedly that greater bodily function transpires from regular change in exercise and method because of new challenges imposed (which means harder work for the muscles). I’m not talking about demonstrating lifting ability in the gym, since doing the same things repeatedly obviously will show the greatest improvement in what you regularly practice. I’m talking about moving a sofa or heavy piece of furniture, carrying bags of cement over your shoulder, etc. – everyday tasks not done in the gym. The more ‘rounded’ your training experience, the more capable the muscles will be from various angles and in different positions when compared to remaining static in exercise demand choices. Diverseness vs. Similarity – if you want to be very good at a particular thing, keep practicing it, but if you want to have decent ability in many things, then you need to be varied in your experiences. As well, I have enough experience with clients who receive a lot of variation (rarely they perform the same workout more than 2-3 times). If we consider a normal healthy individual (I have different approaches for the frail or rehab):   

I find the first workout makes them the most sore; The second workout (no matter how hard they train or if they add more load) does not have the same effect, although somewhat sore; and The third workout produces very little soreness and they fall into a ‘groove’ mentally and physically.

Most ‘experts’ don’t think much of muscle soreness, although Arthur Jones stated years ago that he believed the productivity of an exercise often is linked to the degree of soreness (DOMS) it produces. It makes sense, since if something is easy with very little challenge, there is no reason for soreness to occur (which is produced by tissue damage and inflammation). In that regard, I have found soreness relates to both growth and to that ‘peaked look’ in muscles, so long as it is not extreme. Too extreme (and you often don't know it until you experience it) and you have went too far, although I have applied new methods that really were not that challenging (I thought) and I was sore as heck for a few days later. When there is extreme soreness, this can cause the muscles to 'retreat' like a turtle pulling in its head. Obviously there is balance between creating enough of a challenge without kicking your own ass.

103

A Little more Guidance SPECIFIC – From Workout-to-Workout Let’s consider what happens when trying something new, and how to fit it into your training plan. I experiment with something different for two workouts at most (if I don’t like the method, I will drop it immediately). I may not get the weights right the first workout, and so I’ll do a second workout and fine-tune the loads so they are appropriate or better for the exercise and method in question. By the second workout I get a better sense if I like the method and how often I may resort to it in the future. If so, then fine… I will inventory it and retain it within my training ideas portfolio (such as this book). If the method works for some body parts, but not so well for others, I consider if I may have selected inappropriate exercises for that body part and in conjunction with the nature of the method (some challenges can feel better than others due to leverage and muscle tension). If I question my exercise selection, then I will try a third workout with exercise changes and make note of it. Again, any positive workout will be logged along with the method and approximate loads. From there I continue to experiment, but will return to any method I find worthy. How often I reintegrate a challenge is debatable, as I may go several weeks or even months before returning to something I like… depending on how steady my creative juices are to try other applications. The point is this: With some downtime from (avoidance of) ‘effective’ methods, those methods remain more effective when doing them only sporadically rather than continuously. Doing something too often, even if productive at first, simply allows the muscles to adapt faster and more efficiently to the method, which I try to avoid for as long as possible. Now, if you don't get much from a workout (in terms of pump, feel, or muscle soreness) abandon it. It may or may not be the exercise selection, but it could be the method, e.g., you tried stutters and they worked well for legs, but not biceps, etc. You don’t have to over-think what doesn’t work, but certainly make note of what does work. Whatever works, go for a second workout, and then leave it – do not get caught in the trap of milking it until it no longer has value as you always can return to the workout a few months later. Lastly, you want to create an inventory of general workouts (combinations you like) and applications (how you lift the weight, e.g., stutter reps, or doing 20-rep sets, etc.), so that after 15-20 good combinations you later can cycle through them so that you may only repeat any particular workout 2-4 times a year. Now, keep all that in mind, viz., make note of what works within a general strategy, but also what works for particular muscles.

104

GENERAL – A Workout Strategy Some of the Challenges are longer and more fatiguing, such as 30-15-8, compared to a straight set of Full+Burns. If you prefer full-body training and find some of the Challenges too taxing for all muscles, simply apply more taxing methods to only a few select parts and perform standard sets for the remaining parts. Determine what muscles you want to prioritize (e.g., a focus on a weak link, or a rotational prioritizing among all muscles or a random prioritization), and do less work or an easier application (maintenance work) for remaining muscles. For example, let’s suppose you have a well-developed back, as well as legs and chest, whereas you want to produce more change in the arms and deltoids. You could do something like this: Body Part Legs Back Chest Biceps Triceps Shoulders

Exercise Squats Pulldowns & Cable Rows Dumbbell Chest Press Cable Curls Barbell Curls Overhead Cable Extensions Machine Extensions Cable Side Raise Bent Cable Raise

Challenge Straight Set Straight Sets Straight Set 8-15-30 50-Rep Challenge Tension/Rest Cluster Cadence Challenge 50-Rep Challenge Fractal Stutters

Obviously the above can be applied to a split routine, e.g., strong body parts are given fewer sets or sets without challenges. And if you think the above seems like too much for a workout, then simply focus attention on one part each week, e.g., biceps receive more sets with challenges, whereas train the other parts with regular/straight sets. Understand that there are many ways to ‘balance’ the equation in training, whether reducing the number of sets, reducing the intensity-of-effort, eliminating ‘challenges’ for a part, or even reducing the rate-offrequency for a part while placing greater emphasis on one or more other select parts.

105

Varying Repetitions & Set Volume I want to push aside the Challenges for a moment and look at a topic that is so fundamental, and yet looked at often in a one-dimension way: Ideal number of repetitions and sets. A person may find lower reps work better in general, although moderate or higher reps sometime will give an edge or add to the overall hypertrophy effect. But because lower reps work better, the other rep counts often are ignored. Likewise, someone may find a single set per body part or exercise works better than more sets overall and the trainee will avoid multiple sets. This is not to suggest multiple sets are not better, but eventually those extra sets (or maybe extra reps) cause joint strain, over over-training of the body part or body as a whole, etc. Thus, the only solution many people consider is to do the least amount possible or to stick with the same type of program structure to 'play it safe' and because it is the lesser of the evils (or does the most good and least 'harm' on average). However, with such an approach, a person's bodybuilding potential decreases significantly and s/he will convince him or herself "I'm not really trying to achieve my bodybuilding potential." Bullshit! If that person suddenly was given a more balanced physique, more development from all angles, then guaranteed that person would not refuse it. The problem is getting there and knowing how to juggle the variables - in this case, repetitions and set count variances. I'm not stating that the following suggestions are ideal or perfect, but to stimulate your thinking toward being more eclectic or varied in training strategy when it comes to repetition and set volume. Let's begin with repetition count. For bodybuilding purposes, low repetitions would be 8-10, moderate would be 12-15 and high would be 20-25. Of course there are reps in between these (e.g., 16-19), but you get the idea and YOU can 'set' those values to whatever you want as this serves merely as an example. OK, here is one idea of how to integrate all three range patterns, along with variances in cadence application (I prefer moving slower with heavier weights, e.g., 2/2 or 3/3), at a moderate rhythm with moderate weights and moderate reps (approx. 2/2 or slightly faster), and more of a pumping rhythm with higher reps (1/1 or 1.5/1.5); and with higher reps I may even target a Zone or section of the full ROM rather than training the full ROM because of my speed-of-movement. WEEK 1: 8-10 repetition sets (heavier loading and slower cadence) WEEK 2: 12-15 repetition sets (moderate loading and moderate cadence) WEEK 3: 20-15 repetition sets (lighter loading and faster cadence) Then at the end of Week 3 repeat. Simple, right? You can record your weights and rep counts if you choose to do so, (if you're into recording workouts), but more importantly you get a chance to experience the value that each rep count, loading and cadence has to offer without giving anything up. The same idea applies to set volume, in that a person may experience a good effect with a particular number of sets, but over the course of several weeks or months, there may be more strain on the joints from the extra work, or there could be localized or generalized over-training accumulating. But as with repetition count, you can cycle set volume very effectively. For this example, let's presume we're speaking of one set per exercise vs. multiple sets per exercise - and 106

although the number for 'multiple' could mean any number, we will limit it to a maximum of three sets per exercise. And so: WEEK 1: One set per exercise WEEK 2: Two sets per exercise WEEK 3: Three sets per exercise With the above example, you may only be performing one exercise per body part, or two or three, etc. As with the repetition count example, after Week 3, return to Week 1 values (one set) and start again. Of course, you can look at it from a different perspective and perform the following for each body part for one set each: WEEK 1: One exercise WEEK 2: Two exercises WEEK 3: Three exercises You can cycle through that simple program, but then we have other possibilities to try: WEEK 1: One set per exercise, but three exercises per body part WEEK 2: Two sets per exercise, but two exercises per body part WEEK 3: Three sets per exercise with one exercise per body part Or really ramp up the demands with this one: WEEK 1: One set per exercise, and one exercise per body part WEEK 2: Two sets per exercise, and two exercises per body part WEEK 3: Three sets per exercise, and three exercises per body part Or mix and match the possibilities: WEEK 1: One set per exercise, but two exercises per body part WEEK 2: Two sets per exercise, but three exercises per body part (more demanding week) WEEK 3: Three sets per exercise, but one exercise per body part

107

So far this should seem straight forward, but consider all the possibilities when coordinating rep count with set count: WEEK 1: One set per exercise, three exercises per body part, and 8-10 reps per set WEEK 2: Two sets per exercise with two exercises per body part, and 12-15 reps per set WEEK 3: Three sets per exercise with one exercise per body part, and 20-25 reps per set Even with the same sets and exercises over the three week cycle, you can create three different cycles based on what rep counts you apply on what weeks, e.g., 8-10 reps in Week 1, then Week 2, then Week 3... while the other rep counts rotate accordingly (and remember, with different rep counts you also change the loading and cadence): WEEK 1: One set per exercise, three exercises per body part, and 8-10 reps per set WEEK 2: Two sets per exercise with two exercises per body part, and 12-15 reps per set WEEK 3: Three sets per exercise with one exercise per body part, and 20-25 reps per set WEEK 4: One set per exercise, three exercises per body part, and 20-25 reps per set WEEK 5: Two sets per exercise with two exercises per body part, and 8-10 reps per set WEEK 6: Three sets per exercise with one exercise per body part, and 12-15 reps per set WEEK 7: One set per exercise, three exercises per body part, and 12-15 reps per set WEEK 8: Two sets per exercise with two exercises per body part, and 20-25 reps per set WEEK 0: Three sets per exercise with one exercise per body part, and 8-10 reps per set Or you can keep the rep count (with appropriate loading and cadence) consistent for a three-week cycle, but rotate the number of sets and/or number of exercises per body part: WEEK 1: One set per exercise with three exercises per body part, and 8-10 reps per set WEEK 2: Two sets per exercise with two exercises per body part, and 12-15 reps per set WEEK 3: Three sets per exercise with one exercise per body part, and 20-25 reps per set WEEK 4: Three sets per exercise with one exercise per body part, and 8-10 reps per set WEEK 5: One set per exercise with three exercises per body part, and 12-15 reps per set WEEK 6: Two sets per exercise with two exercises per body part, and 20-25 reps per set WEEK 7: Two sets per exercise with two exercises per body part, and 8-10 reps per set WEEK 8: Three sets per exercise with one exercise per body part, and 12-15 reps per set WEEK 9: One set per exercise with three exercises per body part, and 20-25 reps per set Of course, you can change the sets count and rep counts while keeping the exercise count consistent. Or you can change the exercise and rep count while keeping the set count consistent. In effect, every nine weeks develop a different combination challenge. And if that isn't enough variation, then integrate the Challenges in this book and in my other books to start creating enough change in exercise demands to last two more lifetimes!

108

5. Muscleaneous I want to wrap up my training history in brief, among a few other tidbits. When I first got into bodybuilding, to the point of working out with weights and buying the magazines (age 15), I took for granted that a person should train to muscular fatigue… you keep lifting the weights until you no longer can lift the weights. I thought this was true of all sets, apart from any warming up. And so, when I followed the magazine routines, I would do 15-20 sets per muscle, but all of them to failure! During that time I never made much in terms of muscular gains, and felt worn out a lot (including tendonitis issues), but being young and skinny, I managed to get through those workouts. Never was it disclosed (to my memory) that although Champion X may be doing 20 sets, most of those sets rarely lasted more than 30-seconds, and only a few in the mix pushed the limits (and that person was on steroids with better genetics to make gains in spite of his training). Years later when discovering HIT, I already was ahead of the game, having trained to failure on all sets and knowing what was required of me to make every rep and set count. This time, however, my set volume was much decreased to about 2-5 sets per muscle. The decrease in volume allowed for a nice size surge… up to a point. As the years rolled by, and nothing much changed no matter how hard I trained, I could tell something was missing in the ‘all or nothing’ approach, and it certainly was not its brutality (that aspect is what gave a lot of psychological [ego] motivation as it separated myself from all those ‘pumpers’). It has been the past decade that everything ‘clicked’ and made more sense when it came to optimizing my appearance in general and from workout-to-workout: 1. There needs to be enough volume and frequency to keep the muscles on edge. 2. Training to failure helps to push muscles to the edge, but it has to be done on only some sets within a workout, or even every second workout for a particular muscle. Too much ‘to failure’ and I cannot perform enough volume and frequency. 3. The ‘champs’ had it right, in that they focused a lot on muscle congestion with some sets here and there that are meant to push the boundaries, but with two things in mind: a) They can do a lot more than the average person because of drug use – therefore, much of what you see in magazines need to be reduced sufficiently, although to what extent is an individual matter; and b) When you consider magazine routines and how brief the sets are, that many sets are not that hard (only somewhat hard and hovering around that level 8-9 out of 10), in sum they are not that fatiguing and will not encourage over-training any more than a person performing a quarter as much and pushing the limits every set and every workout. However, magazine programs are not very economical and without drugs a person has to focus a lot more on the quality of what is being done rather than the sheer number of reps and sets.

109

*** *** Don’t be fooled by the ‘hardgainer’ moniker and the supposed ‘need’ to perform less exercise less often to optimize progress for the hardgainer – the opposite is true! Let’s get a few things straight: A person who is mesomorphic (naturally husky, muscular and who can develop muscle easiest) will have a predominance of Type IIb fast-twitch muscle fibers, and likely a hefty portion of Type IIa Intermediate fibers. Such a person will not have a high rate of slow-twitch muscle fibers. A person who is thin will have a predominance of slow-twitch (endurance) muscle fibers with some Type IIa Intermediate fibers if s/he is fortunate. A person can have good muscle building potential in some muscles and poor potential in others. This discrepancy may be because of muscle fiber type, but also note that muscle/tendon insertion (muscle length), muscle fiber density (how many fibers and cells are in muscle), and several other factors can and will determine a muscle or person’s ability to develop as a result of weight training exercise. Nonetheless, large muscular individuals and/or muscles (whether naturally like that or because of weight training) will not have a high rate of slow-twitch muscle fibers, and on that note, the next point. Fast-twitch fibers respond so well to exercise that they require very little of it, and less frequently when compared to those individuals and/or muscles with a lot of slow-twitch endurance fibers. Conversely, slow-twitch fibers can take a lot of abuse, in terms of workout volume and frequency. The Type IIa Intermediate fibers are somewhere in the middle, with good ability/resistance toward exercise volume and frequency. They do not require hours of training or trained too frequently, but to optimize their size there needs to be ‘enough’ volume and frequency (and apparently, Type IIa Intermediate fibers possess greater hypertrophy potential whereas the larger Type IIb fast-twitch fibers possess greater force production potential, viz., bodybuilding vs. maximum weight lifting). In sum, if you are on the thin side, you likely have a high ratio of slow-twitch muscle fibers with ‘some’ Type IIa Intermediate fibers, whether throughout your entire body or in select muscles (again, other factors may be at play, such as muscle belly length and fiber density). Therefore, you are NOT a candidate for very brief and infrequent training; rather, you are a candidate for more volume and frequency than the genetic superior – albeit within reason of tolerance and recovery ability. *** ***

110

Likely one of the most confusing concepts for weight trainees, and particular a good portion of the HIT crowd (since they like to focus on the numbers, as well as full ROM reps all the time) is freestyle. The idea of freestyling is that you are not locked into how you lift a weight during a set and you go by its feel to determine where you should be performing your repetitions (whether full or partial/Zones). Let me give you an example: Suppose I am doing the 30-15-8 method, and I want about a level 8-out-of-10 in effort by the time I’m done the 30-rep part of the challenge. The exercise is the incline dumbbell curl, and typically I can use 15-pound dumbbells without issue (enough of a challenge, but within reason). Now, today I could be a bit stronger than usual, or a bit weaker than usual with those ‘usual’ 15-pound dumbbells. I may not know that I’m stronger or weaker than usual, but I do know a few things about the incline dumbbell exercise: 1. The bottom stretched position (the first few inches) is the most difficult; 2. If the movement becomes too hard and if I can squeeze into the middle third of the exercise then I’m generally OK and can work the remaining ROM hard; 3. The top half is the easiest part and if the movement becomes too hard, then I can shift into that zone; likewise, if I find the exercise a bit too easy, then I can shift into the middle third or bottom third/half for a greater challenge. OK, based on the above, let’s presume a 30-rep set with those 15-pound dumbbells. I want to keep the tension somewhat high initially, and so I will begin working the reps in the bottom 2/3rd of the full ROM. Around rep 8 I decide to shift into the middle 1/3 rd for the sake of randomness (if nothing more at this point). By rep 15 the fatigue starts to kick in and so I shift into the top ½ of the ROM, but by rep 20 I find the tension is not as high as I want it to be. I then perform two full-ROM reps, and then shift back into the bottom ½, which increases the difficulty quicker than I thought it would. From rep 25 I’m now working the middle 1/3 rd for a few reps, then another two reps in the top ½ and finally a full-ROM rep to wrap it up. If you’re not used to freestyling exercise, this may seem confusing. Understand that what I do is train an exercise in a somewhat random manner, although there is a method to that madness. I may select a Zone or area in a random way (“hey, let’s try some reps here”), but during those reps I may find the fatigue is catching up too fast or not fast enough relative to the rep count or tension time I want to achieve (in the above case 30-reps at about a level 8-out-of10), and I will shift around into a different Zone, or perhaps perform a full-ROM rep (if I find doing so [relative to the exercise] will help to make the set easier, harder, or simply for the sake of doing so as part of the challenge). The above still may not be clear, and so you need to get your feet wet. Select an exercise on any piece of equipment, knowing that you can perform approximately 15 repetitions (or select a weight that you know you can achieve 40-60 seconds tension time) all with full ROM repetitions. It matters not that you train to failure or short of failure, but keep it consistent – if you typically train to failure, then that is the goal; if you typically train a rep or two short of failure, then that is the goal. Now, knowing that you still want to achieve that number of repetitions or tension time, do a few full ROM reps, then shift into the most difficult half or 111

third of the movement. In very little time you will want out of there, and so return to full ROM reps, or shift into an easier zone, whether in the middle or near the top, etc. In effect, play around with the tension and where you do your reps, mixing up the full ROM reps with the partials or zones, and see how close you can come to achieving those 15 reps, or 40-seconds of tension time (or whatever value you assigned the challenge) by working the exercise with random (albeit guided) patterns. Also note the difference in how the muscles feel when compared to standardized sets of only full-ROM reps. Once you get a feel for this, start incorporating freestyling into your training. You don’t have to do this on all sets or all exercises in every workout, but it adds to the challenges imposed on the muscles and certainly makes training more interesting, experimental and enjoyable. I prefer a freestyle approach with higher rep counts (12 or more) and find the tension too high with briefer sets to make much use of the method. The only exception would be needing to resort to ‘burns’ (partials in the easier part of an exercise) if the full ROM reps catch up too quickly and/or if I want to add more rep volume to a set. *** *** In order to show your muscles, body fat levels must be low enough. I’m not talking about being ‘shredded’ or ‘cut,’ as with competitive bodybuilders… but certainly lean enough to see the lines and grooves (muscle separation) that you worked so hard to achieve. It’s discouraging and even confusing16 as to why a person would train so hard, only to have that hard work covered by excess fat. It’s like constructing a beautiful home and then covering it up with mud and tree branches, knowing that what lies underneath is awe-inspiring ‘if only’ it could be seen. Yes, there is the ‘joy’ of training that most of us have, but the satisfaction of looking in the mirror and seeing the shape and contours of the body brings even greater elation than what the training experience ever could. Just something to think about. In any case, I have found maintaining a good body weight (yes, I do a get a bit smooth here and there, but I always get rid of it) works best on a short cyclic approach, as opposed to saying “I’m going on a diet for the next 12 weeks and hope I can bring my fat weight down.” In effect, you can gain and maintain lean mass while coaxing fat loss by controlling body responses, which works in a short-term cyclic manner with training. Here are the guidelines: 1. You need to know how much food you require to maintain weight; I’m not talking about gaining or losing weight (fat), but simply maintaining weight. Once you know that, then it doesn’t take much figuring on what is required to lose some weight, viz., fewer calories or less food/smaller portions. Do not bother counting calories; rather, estimate how much food you require daily, based on eating habits and patterns. 2. You likely have noticed that on days you train, you tend to eat fewer calories (and there is a slight sense of nausea that follows); that is because your body is in a mild state of 16

I say ‘confusing,’ but it is obvious that it has a lot to do with the enjoyment of eating, consuming alcohol or any other vice that has an effect on weight gain. There’s also the issue of laziness and lack of self-discipline to be in ‘decent’ shape and maintaining it, particularly as we age and metabolism and testosterone decrease.

112

3. 4.

5.

6.

shock from the exercise and food is not a current priority. However, make certain after training you consume some simple carbs to replenish lost glycogen stores (otherwise, you crave them too much later in the day or the following day). Now, on the days you train consume fewer calories than usual, since you're not that hungry anyway. The day after training (presuming you are taking that day off), that is when hunger pangs increase since you are rebounding from training and the body wants more calories to combat that mild shock you put it through. This is where the work begins (viz., controlling those hunger pangs)... you need to consume no more than your usual food intake or a bit less; and if possible, consume foods that create a lot of bulk in the gut, such as high-fiber drinks with lots of water, raw cabbage, etc., although be aware of what foods cause a lot of bloating and gas. As well, foods with hot peppers and hot sauces curb the appetite and I find coffee creates a slight nausea in my gut (which curbs my appetite further). Do make certain to focus on nutrient-dense foods, such as nuts, seeds, lean meats, wild rice, quinoa, yogurt with probiotics, etc. It’s about the quality of what you eat that will make a difference, since lack of nutrients in the diet tends to increase appetite and the desire for junky foods. Obviously, as you lose body fat and become leaner the ‘maintenance’ amount of food you need will decrease, presuming muscle mass remains the same. If you gain some muscle and lose some fat the overall kcalories either will stay the same or increase slightly depending on any change of metabolism (more muscle = higher metabolism). Use good judgment.

In sum, apply a cyclic approach to your nutrition, which coincides with training days, juggling when you can or should decrease food consumption and when you need (must have) more food. By altering food intake on a daily basis you don’t have to undergo long periods of calorie restriction. If you need to lose fat you can ‘peak’ the muscles, possibly even gain more muscle and while reducing fat in small increments or stages as opposed to going to the extremes of food reduction, which never works for anyone long-term. Once you get to a satisfactory lean state, you will be better able to sustain that conditioning and lose those few pounds you gain on holidays or other times when you tend to eat a bit too much. *** *** On the issue of diet and fat loss, it takes time for the stomach to shrink (about 2-4 weeks) and for less food to feel sufficient. During that time you have to battle through the hunger pangs, which is where plenty of fiber and water, and even appetite suppressants help (I prefer the type that you add to water; that way I get my fluids and not feel so hungry). Once over that hurdle you may not need a diet aid, although it depends on your will power and how lean you want to get – the leaner you get, the more difficult it is to lose even small amounts of fat, since the body strives to keep its protective fat stores.

113

OK, so you’re starting to lose some fat. Here are three more issues. One, believe it or not you will thrive on hunger pangs, knowing that your body is working to reduce fat stores. You will learn to hold off on eating or grab for that water bottle, cup of coffee or vege platter before you go off the deep end and over-consume meals (whether the food is healthy or not, you don’t want to eat excessively). Two, expect to look worse before you look better. When you’re on the smooth or fat side, the body looks filled out and round, which helps to give that big muscular appearance (at least under a shirt). As you lose fat, the skin becomes loose and the remaining fat stores tend to sag. Consequently, it is not unusual for a person to look better developed 20-pounds of fat ago than s/he does after the fact. Just hang in there – the body eventually will tighten up and muscle separation eventually will poke through. Three, few people realize how much fat they can lose. I wrote about this before in a previous book, but a colleague once weighed 240-pounds at 6’2” and believed he needed to lose 20pounds to look athletic, viz., some visible abs. He sent me a photo for an opinion, and although not a fat person (he carried his weight well) I predicted he should weigh about 190-pounds, and possibly upward of 195-pounds to be in the shape he wanted to be in. He thought my opinion was a laugh and that there is no way he could lose that much weight without cutting off a leg and an arm. Well, after a few months of dieting down, and at 220-pounds, he barely looked different – a little better, but certainly not with a lean midsection. A few months later he was 205-pounds and looked pretty good, but still not what he expected. At that time he conceded and agreed that 195-pounds likely would hit the nail on the head, although he never bothered to go for that final bit of fat loss (the dieting took its toll and tired him out – which is why the ‘coaxing’ method I explained previously should be considered once you get to a decent body weight/image and want to take it a step further). Further to the above example, there is another person on a fitness forum who began posting photos and workout logs to document his transformation. He began at 216-pounds, although began posting at the 204-pound mark. He did not clarify his goal weight, but certainly wanted to look lean enough to show some abs. I messaged him and indicated he will need to reach 180-pounds, which he thought was unreasonable (thinking it was too big a weight loss), and that 195-pounds was reasonable. Weeks later, once reaching 194-pounds, he looks only a bit better and commented that his goal weight is now 180-185 pounds. The point I’m making is not how insightful I am about getting in shape, although certainly years of working on myself and competitive bodybuilders helped, but that people do not realize how much body weight loss (fat, water and even a bit of muscle) it takes to look athletic and conditioning, which helps to showcase the development you do have. It actually surprises me how ‘smooth’ most people are who claim to be into bodybuilding. I’m uncertain if their lack of leanness is the result of laziness and lack of will-power to get lean, or a fear of losing muscle as a result of dieting (which would suggest lack of knowledge in how to diet properly in order to preserve as much muscle as possible). Regardless of the reason(s), some people work so hard

114

to develop muscles to their optimum, yet are unable to show them – even to themselves when standing in front of a mirror. *** *** In order to sustain a high level of demands and to produce the best effect I try to think of things I have not done or tried in my training, or have not done or tried in quite some time – a visit from a long-lost relative, you could say. I have always found keeping things fresh to be key in producing the best results, as opposed to hammering away at the same things, no matter how seemingly productive those things were initially. If they were that good, then certainly factor them in again at a later date, but don’t belabor the issue for too long a stretch. Certainly this has been one of the themes in this book, but I bring it up again for good reason – DO NOT BE AFRAID TO EXPERIMENT AND INTEGRATE VARIOUS IDEAS TO MAKE A TYPICAL TRAINING METHOD FRESH. Even if you come up with an idea or combination of ideas that are not very good, it’s only one workout after all, and from experience I have found even a mediocre workout with something new is a heck of a lot better than doing the same thing over and over. Let me give you an example of what I did not long ago: I like the Tension/Rest Challenge explained on page 81, but I did it a few times over the course of a few months and wanted something different. Well, all you have to do is do ‘anything’ other than full ROM reps to make it different – and so, I included both stutters and incremental reps17 in the challenge. The effect is very different, and certainly I could have done the same thing with different Zone combinations. Now, take this same idea and apply it to all the other challenges, such as the 30-15-8 whereby the 30 is performed into thirds (10 in each 1/3), the 15 divided in halves (7 in each half followed by a full ROM rep to finish), and then the last set of 8 reps can be full ROM (and throw in a bunch of partial burns at the end of that set). Get the idea? Each week ask yourself the same question: “How diverse, challenging and unique can I make training? When you start exploring many possibilities you will find your training enters far fewer ruts along the way. Want another example? This one is tough, and generally 1-2 exercises per body part may be enough. It’s nothing more than the 30-15-8 method, but I extend the sequencing: 30-15-8-15-30-15-8 (down in reps and up in load, then down in load and up with reps, then down in reps and up in load). I take the usual 40-seconds rest between and train hardest on the 8-rep sets (often to failure on the final set of 8). Depending on how tough the first 30-rep set is, I may keep the weight the same, reduce or increase slightly next time I do 30-reps. The same goes for 15- and 8-reps, e.g., if I found a weight tough the first time I do 8 reps I will need to decrease that load the second time I return for 8-reps and for obvious reasons of fatigue. 17

An incremental rep is as follows: in the bottom of a leg press, for example, press only ¼ up, then return to the bottom, then press ½ up, then return to the bottom, then ¾ up, then back to the bottom, then all the way up. In effect, you keep returning to the bottom position with the full ROM divided into four segments and with each rep being a segment longer in ROM (although you could divide the ROM into thirds if preferred); and you could always return to the top of an exercise, such as with leg extensions or chin-ups, although I tend to prefer starting from the stretch no matter the exercise.

115