super compensation and bodybuilders

[chiseled21]

I was talking to a friend earlier and was telling him that I have been doing total body type workouts for over a year and will probably not go back to a traditional super compensation split anytime soon. He is a bodybuilder and has also competed in PL'ing. His opinion is that 5 X 5 and other such workouts are for powerlifting and cannot be sold on training this way with me because he has bodybuilding goals and feels that he should do what he considers to be a bodybuilding split. My question I would like to see discussed is whether or not there is ever a benefit to doing a split that involves one or two bodyparts per day 4 exercises per muscle and 4 sets per exercise?

[kasper2133]

If i may add to this discussion, what is most important for hypertrophy. High density (Most work done in less time) and short rest periods between sets like in most high volume bodybuilding programs suggested above. Other examples are Vince gironda – 10-20 sec rest, Charles Staley – EDT, German volume training etc. Or strength based routines with long rest between sets like the 5x5, 10x3, MAX-OT etc.

Or is it just two different ways to hit the high threshold fibers, so the outcome would be the same?

We are not talking about strength, only cosmetic training.

[Ramstein II]

As suggested above, the high volume split workouts are designed to induce a lot of muscle protein breakdown. Zatsiorsky in Science and Practice of Strength Training discusses these types of workouts and says they are designed for hypertrophy. He seems to agree that it is muscle protein breakdown from tension that leads to hypertrophy. Increasing work density maximizes this breakdown and supercompensation process. Obviously, the body can only adapt so fast, so too much volume may cause you to exceed your growth capacity. Another advantage MAY be more sarcomplasmic hypertrophy, if it is true that sarcoplasmic and sarcomere hypertrophy can occur at different relative rates. The other advantage is that high volume, traditional bodybuilding routines, if performed for fatigue as they should be, will allow you to access the highest threshold fibers that are used in lifting 90%+ max loads as in power training. However, the highest threshold fibers will not fire at their maximum frequency and will not develop quite as much power as training with low reps/high weight. They will, however, hypertrophy, which is what bodybuilders want. On the way to accessing the high threshold fibers through high volume work with sets of say 10, the slower fibers also get fired and more protein is broken down which mazimizes hypertrophy. One advantage to the high volume way to these high threshold fibers is that not as much load is used--you don't have to lift such heavy weight.

I think that strength and power training (ie. for sport and powerlifting) and strength and mass (ie. for bodybuilding) overlap and share much in common. However, pure strength training is not designed to maximize hypertrophy, unless a hypertrophy period is included in a special program where weight gain is desired, such as in some football situations. Pure strength training is more designed to TRAIN the existing muscle mass to contract more forcefully at with a greater number of fibers. This is how athletes get much stronger but not much bigger. Hypertrophy will occur with power/strength training, but it's not usually the goal and it may not be maximized if the volume is kept relatively low. Many power athletes that strength train had a large amount of strength potential (ie. muscle mass and neuromuscular connection) before they ever engaged in their power sport. It is usually the body-type / genetic make up that determines a person's sport potential. Strength training explores and enhances that potential. It's the old debate of are you strong because you lift or do you lift because you're strong.

Mass training is designed to increase the muscle’s POTENTIAL STRENGTH, but not its STRENGTH PERFORMANCE. In other words, in bodybuilding the muscles are trained to get bigger. They get stronger in the sense that they gain more contractile tissue, but the bodybuilding program does not ideally train that contractile tissue to contract with higher force and with higher percentage of fiber recruitment in a given motion. However, the muscle mass of a bodybuilder could be trained to perform a task, such as the bench press, with astonishing power--it's just a matter of "teaching" those large muscles to do something--it's a neurological thing.

In sum, power/strength training is more designed to increase neuromuscular coordination in a given motion–it’s motion training. Hypertropny/mass training is designed to increase muscle mass through muscle breakdown and rebuild–it’s muscle training.

So, traditional bodybuilding routines do what they say they will IMO. They just have to be understood as such. Does that mean you should work each body part once a week only? Not necessarily. Remember, you can only gain so quickly. So simply breaking down a muscle until its liquified is not going to speed up that growth.

Keep in mind that progressive resistance is still important in bodybuilding. Increaseing loads will allow for more total volume in less time and more hypertrophy.

Someone above asked whether reaching the high threshold fibers through volume training versus high weight/low rep (power training) will have the same effect. With regard to hypertrophy: No. The high volume moderate weight (ie. sets of 10) will produce more hypertrophy because the total amount of mechanical work is greater. With regard to power: No. The power training way will fire those fibers at their proper frequency and therefore train more forceful contractions.

[chiseled21]

great post!thanks for the response. Does anyone else have any comments?

[Freddy]

At his peak JS was about 370 pounds, with no gut whatsoever. No, he wasn't bodybuilder lean, but I imagine he knows a thing or two about building muscle.

Have you ever seen a competitive powerlifter or olympic lifter? They are very muscular and can easily be mistaken for bodybuilders.

[knockdown]

So is 5X5 a massing gaining routine also?

[kenneth]

sure as hell is, as long as you're eating enough.

[chiseled21]

I have seen many powerlifters, strongmen, and olyimpic lifters. I am already a true believer in the 5 X5 system and other workouts that invlove similar principals(core movemants, de-loading, strict form, constant weight progression). I am telling alot of my friends about it but they are stuck in their ways(which is good because their ignorance should allow me to pass them lol). The primary result that I was hoping to see in this thread was the discussion of training methods and the purposes that they serve; ie is there a time and place for super compensation, will low rep schemes create the body type a bodybuilder would want if cardio and diet are suffice. I am not doubting John Smith, AM, or anyone else I just thought it would make for good discussion. Thanks for the reply. I have learned a great deal on this site and highly respect many of your opinions.

[kasper2133]

Does anyone have pictures of JS. He must be a big motherf..... Does he have a website?

[Ramstein II]

The way I look at the supercompensation vs. 2 factor debate is this: most reputable exercise scientist believe in the energy theory of muscle hypertrophy meaning that what signals hypertrophy is the inadequate supply of “energy” in a working muscle. This “energy” consists of many things, including available contractile protein. When contractile protein breaks down and stored energy for motion, such as creatine phosphate, deplete a rebuilding / anabolic process begins. This process is a supercompensation process.-- The body builds the muscle back with more contractile protein and stored energy given adequate nutrition. So, for bodybuilding alone, supercompensation is an adequate theory. The theory falls short for sport performance because it does not take the nervous system into account. 2 Factor theory IMO is primarily a model for understanding the nervous system and its role in strength development. In other words, the “training stimulus” for strength training is just that, “training.” De-training will occur with inadequate frequency. So this fitness-fatigue model is centered around the nervous system and its interplay with the muscular system. Can 2 Factor be used for hypertrophy training? Absolutely. It just yields a different program. Under supercompensation theory based training rest intervals are typically longer. During that time “de-training” of the nervous system may occur. Power may come more slowly as a result. However, it is unlikely that 7 day rest intervals will result in any appreciable atrophy of the subject muscle if the workout was sufficient. If the workout was sufficient hypertrophy will occur over the week. In fact, it may take 2 weeks for the muscle to fully “repair” and supercompensate from training, however the detraining of the nervous system in 2 weeks would be too much for even a bodybuilding program to make useful and regular progress. So, mass gains will be made even on a split that works each muscle once a week. The strength gained on such a split will be more from added contractile protein (strength potential) and not so much from added neuromuscular coordination as such neuromuscular coordination will be largely lost through de-training over the week rest.

So, in short, supercomensation is an adequate theory for bodybuilding but not strength training.

[Grizzly]

Adequate, maybe, but certainly not the best.

[Ramstein II]

I've had great success with 2 factor training for bodybuilding. I think the neuromuscular related strength gains have enabled me to have more productive workouts to induce hypertrophy.

BTW, I don't want anybody saying I'm advocating 6 day split supercompensation workouts like in the glossy magazines. I'm merely presenting a theoretical discussion for fun. I'm just tossing that point of view out there. It's not nec. mine.

I believe the pump is the most important thing. Just kidding.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by chiseled21

The primary result that I was hoping to see in this thread was the discussion of training methods and the purposes that they serve; ie is there a time and place for super compensation

If there is a time and a place for an inferior training theory that has been disproven by 99.99% of the scientific community, rejected by all strength and conditioning coaches, and debunked by hundreds of thousands of athletes from the US to China...then yes, there is a time and a place for supercompensation.

[Ronin_]

As far as density in a workout, I always got my best hypertrophy from mixed drop sets.

By this i mean i would do heavy 4 rep to failure weights, strip weight off immediately and do 8 reps, id then strip weight off again and do 12 reps.

Alot of work and fatigue in a short period and i would rest 90 seconds max even on squat triple drop sets. That has been by the far the best growth program i have used.

Around 3 triple drops of 3 exercises ( so 27 sets) per body part in about half an hour per body part. working up to doing this twice a week on a push and pull split.

What's the science behind this? it has always made me grow like crazy and have great vascularity, not to mention great cardio fitness

[Madcow2]

Originally Posted by Freddy

rejected by all strength and conditioning coaches,

Not true unfortunately . The BBing world has spawned a few HIT coaches (who would be best served by being slapped with a plate), most notably at PSU with strict adherence to HIT and near exclusive use of machines. I won't say it's the cause of their current issues but it certainly isn't helping. Here's a long thread where this got debated - I didn't come around until the end: http://www.fortifiediron.net/invisio...hl=power+shrug

Personally, my feeling is that the only reason single factor training works at all is that with good exercises there's enough of a load, enough frequency, and enough deloading to allow for a really shitty proxy of dual factor. It's a lonely camp to be in if you knock out the BBers and to be honest that's not a group of people known for sound theories and proper implementation. I worked with someone for a few months who went on to get his pro card over the next year and had a decently successful career. If it wasn't for the drugs, he'd be just another noodlearm in the gym. I've seen him train many times. He discussed his programs in length (the ones that stunted the growth of all his non-juiced PT clients) and as BBers go was a lot smarter than most. He had the discipline to feed himself right and go to the gym on a regular basis just like all the other noodlearms. The only thing separating him was the drugs and his body's efficiency at processing and tolerating exogenous testosterone.