Squating 3x a week is HARD!

[Preacher]

Ya i'm with Grizz, those military press is hard. you want to try something that makes you look even more like a 12 year old girl try Cuban Press. You come off the squat rack or bench using the big plates to no plates people sure do like to look at you funny...

[hackskii]

Honestly I do not see a benefit of doing squats 3 times a week.

I think some Periodisation would be a better option here.

[AnimalMass]

Originally Posted by hackskii

Honestly I do not see a benefit of doing squats 3 times a week.

I think some Periodisation would be a better option here.

It is periodized. It has been and IS consistently successful for world class athletes, including Olympic weightlifters (the ones who are actually in the olympics), cream of the crop football players, and it's worked well for me and I'm a professional strongman.

Matt

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by hackskii

Honestly I do not see a benefit of doing squats 3 times a week.

.

Then you're not looking very hard.

[hackskii]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Then you're not looking very hard.

In my 28 years at the gym, I have only known one person that did squats 3 times a week and that person was me.

After not being satisifed with my strength gains I dropped them to only once a week and got stronger.
Unless someone shows me the light I see this as overtraining and time waisted in the gym.

I have never ever seen anyone squat 3 times a week in any of the gyms I have been in.

How is that for looking hard?

I am a bodybuilder/weight lifter and I dont like the look of olympic athletes, sure they are stong in their one lift but I am not impressed with their bodies.
Bet they got alot of injuries form muscle imballance too.

[unt0ld]

I dont see it to be overtraining. My muscles can handle it. Esp on juice.

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by hackskii

Unless someone shows me the light I see this as overtraining and time waisted in the gym.

Like I said in another thread, read the goddamned stickies. Namely, the tribute to JS sticky. Seek and ye shall find.

edit- And that sure is some shitty logic. "I've never seen anyone in a gym do it." That's friggin' great. I've only seen one other person in my gym squat. I've seen a lot of bench press and cable crossovers though. I guess that means squats aren't good because no one does them and the amazingly effective cable crossover is the way to build mounds of muscle. I've seen one guy deadlift, too. Same guy I've seen squat, though.

[unt0ld]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Like I said in another thread, read the goddamned stickies. Namely, the tribute to JS sticky. Seek and ye shall find.

edit- And that sure is some shitty logic. "I've never seen anyone in a gym do it." That's friggin' great. I've only seen one other person in my gym squat. I've seen a lot of bench press and cable crossovers though. I guess that means squats aren't good because no one does them and the amazingly effective cable crossover is the way to build mounds of muscle. I've seen one guy deadlift, too. Same guy I've seen squat, though.

rofl

[hackskii]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Like I said in another thread, read the goddamned stickies. Namely, the tribute to JS sticky. Seek and ye shall find.

edit- And that sure is some shitty logic. "I've never seen anyone in a gym do it." That's friggin' great. I've only seen one other person in my gym squat. I've seen a lot of bench press and cable crossovers though. I guess that means squats aren't good because no one does them and the amazingly effective cable crossover is the way to build mounds of muscle. I've seen one guy deadlift, too. Same guy I've seen squat, though.

Ok, thank-you again for another one of those information filled posts from you....NOT!!!!!
How in the hell am I going to find a 3 time a week squat benefit in a sticky?
Your posts seem to be more based on sarcasm, negativity and pointless banter than anything of useful information.
Super mod huh?
What a joke, where in the overeating section?

I take your posts with little interest or attention, clearly by one of your post awhile ago on diets I decided then you have little knowledge and little to no information other than insults to share.
Hey, there are a million of those types on many boards.

At least in my posts I tend to give an explanation to either my reasoning or rationale.
Yours are pessimistic, belittling, trash posts.
This tells me much about your character and again your posts I take very lightly due to the lack of information and knowledge.

[unt0ld]

I like squating 3 times a week.

I wouldnt want to do any less.

I love to squat.

[hackskii]

Originally Posted by unt0ld

I like squating 3 times a week.

I wouldnt want to do any less.

I love to squat.

Good for you then do it.
Do you notice any additional benefits?
Stronger?
More vascular?
Bigger?

Can you explain the percent of 1 rep max on the days you do squats?
What kind of intensity are you using?

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by hackskii

Ok, thank-you again for another one of those information filled posts from you....NOT!!!!!
How in the hell am I going to find a 3 time a week squat benefit in a sticky?
Your posts seem to be more based on sarcasm, negativity and pointless banter than anything of useful information.
Super mod huh?
What a joke, where in the overeating section?

I take your posts with little interest or attention, clearly by one of your post awhile ago on diets I decided then you have little knowledge and little to no information other than insults to share.
Hey, there are a million of those types on many boards.

At least in my posts I tend to give an explanation to either my reasoning or rationale.
Yours are pessimistic, belittling, trash posts.
This tells me much about your character and again your posts I take very lightly due to the lack of information and knowledge.

If that's what you want to think, go right ahead. Nothing wrong with being wrong. If it makes you feel any better, I don't like you either.

edit- And don't get mad at me. You're the one who tried to justify his point with fallacious reasoning. If that's not flame worthy, I don't know what is.

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by hackskii

Ok, thank-you again for another one of those information filled posts from you....NOT!!!!!
How in the hell am I going to find a 3 time a week squat benefit in a sticky?

Here ya go, champ. Straight from a sticky.


There are basically two accepted theories in the world of weight training. One is called Super compensation (or Single Factor Theory), and the other is called the Fitness Fatigue Theory (or Dual Factor Theory). Bodybuilding tends to follow the Super compensation way of thinking, while virtually every field of strength and conditioning, athletics, etc. follows the Dual Factor Theory. The reasoning that almost everyone involved in strength training adheres to the Dual Factor Theory is because there is scientific proof that it works, not to mention that the eastern bloc countries that have adhered to this theory have kicked America's ass at every Olympics since the 1950s.

Bodybuilding, for years, has basically ignored Dual Factor Theory and opted for Single Factor Theory training. In the following paragraphs, I hope to prove to you why Dual Factor Theory should be accepted, taught, and adhered to in the world of bodybuilding as well as all other athletes concerned with strength and conditioning.

Note: The one exception to the rule of "all bodybuilding programs based on Super compensation" is Bryan Haycock's HST, which, from Bryan's own mouth, says that it wasn't based on dual factor theory, although he hit it dead-on, on all points. What I didn't care for personally with HST is that the same amount of importance is placed on the 15-rep phase and the negative rep phase as with the 10 rep and 5 rep phases. The thickness that rep ranges in the 3-8 range provide are far more impressive to me personally than those who focus on 12-15 rep schemes and countless negatives. I also wasn't excited about working the entire body in one workout. The CNS drain was unbelievable. – However, in saying that, HST is the best I've seen compared to everything else out there, and I did make good progress on it.

The Super compensation Theory has been, in the bodybuilding community, the most widely accepted school of thought. However, people are beginning to see it as a bit too simplistic (the strength and conditioning and athletic movements have never accepted this practice). The theory itself is based on the fact that training depletes certain substances (like glycogen, and slowing protein synthesis). Training is seen as catabolic, draining the body of its necessary nutrients and fun stuff. So to grow, according to the theory, the body must then be rested for the appropriate/ optimal amount of time, AND, it (the body) must be supplied with all the nutrients it lost. If both of these things are done correctly, then theoretically your body will increase protein synthesis and store more nutrients than it originally had! (i.e. – your muscles will be bigger!)

So obviously the most important part of this theory is TIMING! (Specifically concerning the rest period). But that's where the problem comes in. "If the rest period was too short, then the individual would not be completely recovered and as such the training would deplete the substance even more, which over a period of time would result in overtraining and a loss of performance. If the rest interval were too long then the training would lose its stimulus property, and the individual would recover completely and lose the window of opportunity to provide the stimulus again. If the interval is optimal then improvements surely follow" (AF).

"So, given the one factor theory (Super compensation), which looks at physical ability as, of course, one factor, you are left with the problem of timing workouts to correspond to the super compensation wave... anything sooner or later will lead to a useless workout"(JS).

Another issue concerning the Super compensation/ Single Factor Theory is that of FAILURE. Almost every program that utilizes this type of training advocates the use of muscle/ CNS failure, and then fully rest, and then beat the crap out of your muscles again, then rest, etc (I'm referring to the "work one body part per day, six days per week" program as well as HIT, popularized by Mike Mentzer). The issue is that it has now been proven that total failure is not necessarily needed for optimal growth. It has been shown that leaving a rep or two in the tank can and will yield the same results AND therefore a shorter rest period will be needed and less accumulation of fatigue will still be present by the time the next training session rolls around.

A Better Way…

The Dual Factor Theory, also called Fitness Fatigue Theory is somewhat more complex than the Super compensation Theory. The theory is based on the fact that and individual's fitness and fatigue are totally independent of each other. This theory is entirely dependant on one's base conditioning (or physical preparedness or fitness). The thing is, when you have a high level of fitness (or conditioning/ preparedness) this level changes fairly slowly. This is because over the short term fitness does not fluctuate often. (However, fatigue can change (increase or decrease) fairly quickly when compared to fitness).

"The theory works like equilibrium in that training will have an immediate effect on the body (similar to super compensation). This effect is the combination of fatigue and gain (again, remember the equilibrium thing). So after a workout, because of the stimulus that training provides, preparedness/conditioning/fitness increases (gain) but at the same time will decrease due to fatigue from the training."

"So, the outcome of the training session is the result of both the positive and negative consequences of the training session. These two outcomes depend on time. By striking the correct balance, fatigue should be large in extent but short in how long it lasts. Gain on the other hand should be moderate, however, and is longer in duration. Typically the relationship is 1:3, if fatigue lasts x amount of time then gain lasts 3x amount of time."

"Given the two factor theory, which separates physical fitness or preparedness and fatigue, you see that the timing of individual workouts is unimportant to long term gains (unlike Super compensation)... in other words regardless of whether or not fatigue is or is not present, fitness can and will still be increased" (which is the goal)...

So what you get concerning the two-factor theory is a period of peaking fatigue (maybe 6 weeks), followed by a period of rest (maybe 2 weeks deloading, then one or two weeks of total rest). You view entire weeks and maybe months, as you would have viewed just one workout with the single factor theory. For example, in the single factor theory, one workout represents a period of fatigue. – But, in the two-factor theory, 6 weeks would represent a period of fatigue. In the single factor theory, a day or two (up to a week) represents a period of rest. But in the two-factor theory, up to four weeks may represent a period rest.

"What is important to note is that there is almost universal agreement among scientists and athletes and coaches in all sports EXCEPT bodybuilding that the two factor theory is correct and the single factor theory is not correct and is in fact suitable only for beginners to follow when planning training."

[Grizzly]

Or we can use logic. Since science has demonstrated that more frequent stimulus yields better results, it's pretty obvious that more frequent squatting is more productive.

If you squat/work legs 1X/wk, you provide them with growth stimulus 52X/yr.

If I squat 3X/wk, then I have provided my legs with 156 workouts/growth stimuli in a year.

[unt0ld]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Or we can use logic. Since science has demonstrated that more frequent stimulus yields better results, it's pretty obvious that more frequent squatting is more productive.

If you squat/work legs 1X/wk, you provide them with growth stimulus 52X/yr.

If I squat 3X/wk, then I have provided my legs with 156 workouts/growth stimuli in a year.

hell yea