Waterbury unveils the 24x1

RUSS

Member
As much as I love to critique Chad Waterbury's writing style , I must admit that a couple times a year he writes an article that really stands out IMHO - this is one of them...


http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1738331&cr=



Ironically I have just posted a different take on 10x3 (ten triples) training on a different thread here earlier this week and extolled the results from low rep/high set/high%age1RM training . From my experiences with 10x3 , I can see how 24x1 would give insane gains - especially for someone that has basically always done the 5 and above more typical rep schemes which I think is most here.
smile.gif
 
Interesting how this differs from MS training, other than the fact that he came up with it several years earler. Rest periods are fixed and much shorter, poundages are high and go HIGHER. IMHO, there is no point in performing singles if you have unlimied rest times and rather low weights, relatively speaking. This guy is good!
 
<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 28 2007,17:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Interesting how this differs from MS training, other than the fact that he came up with it several years earler. Rest periods are fixed and much shorter, poundages are high and go HIGHER. IMHO, there is no point in performing singles if you have unlimied rest times and rather low weights, relatively speaking.</div>
But Max-Stim doesn't allow for &quot;unlimited rest time&quot;. Further, although Waterbury's 24x1 presents fixed rest periods (as opposed to Max-Stim's variable M-time), his rest periods are significantly longer than what is recommended under Max-Stim.

Dan Moore recommends an M-time of no more than 30 seconds. When I asked why he replied:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There is no definate answer but once you start getting into very lengthy m-times it may begin to impact the activity levels of the fiber's and in essence you could just end up increasing the time and contiually lift for ever. We must have sufficient level of activity in the fiber itself (neural).
__
Dan Moore </div>
 
I'd rather do a Max Stim cycle based on a 'Simply &amp; Win' type routine though I'm sure that results would be similar doing either MS or Chad style singles.
 
Yeah, I'm sure if followed properly they are both effective. I guess it's a good indicator of a solid program if 2 science-minded individuals came up with very similar ideas.
 
There are some top bbers in Germany who have been using a system very similar to Dan's for a while now. I forget what they call their version of the system. Very similar to MaxStim though.
 
I know max-stim is 20 reps , what are the reccommended starting loads and progression? I could look it up but I'm sure somone here could answer that in a quick sentence.
smile.gif
 
I came across it on Dan's Max-Stim site. I'm sure Dan will remember who it was if you post a similar question over there. There were some vids on YouTube of the folks using the system.

Russ: This was what Dan proposed:

Frequency

As we’ve mentioned in the previous chapter once per week isn’t going to cut it when you are trying to build as much muscle tissue in the shortest amount of time possible. With that said the workout is set up in an alternating workout fashion, A&amp;B routines, they are both full body workouts but may be split to upper/lower, push/pull or whatever you deem necessary to fit into your training schedule.

Each body part should be hit at least 2 times per week with at least 1 set of the primary movement and if needed 1 set of the secondary.

A typical implementation would be:

Monday and Thursday A routine, Tuesday and Friday B routine; this can be arranged in any fashion depending on your training level or schedule.

Other examples;

3X week

Week 1
Monday-A
Weds-B
Fri-A

Week 2
Monday-B
Weds-A
Fri-B

2X week

Monday-A
Thursday-B

Progression and starting intensity

The progression is set up in an undulating linear fashion. There are 3 phases to this program.

Phase 1- Using your 10 RM load 4 workouts per week
Phase 2- Using your 8 RM load 4 workouts per week
Phase 3- Using your 6 RM load 4 workouts per week

Each phase starts out at 75% of the RM for that phase and increases over the duration to a maximum of 110% of the RM.
 
Thanks LOL , I can definitely see similarities , but also enough (subtle though they may arguably be) differences that each may appeal more to different lifters. Max-stim has undeniably gotten a lot of lifters to lift heavier at volumes nessessary to gain , I personally believe the split used (2x/wk per group,4x/wk total w/o's) is extremely effective once 3x/wk TBT becomes stale wether physically or mentally . I use the 2x/per group@4x/wk total workouts and the 3x/wk TBT about equally at this point in my lifting , the 2x/wk per muscle group split has undeniable advantages yet as a Father , Husband , ect.ect. - the 3x/wk is DAMN convenient and also effective and infinitely tweakable too.

I was pleasantly suprised to see the similarities to my own 10x3 template I use also, although I've never Max-stimmed per se , I can absolutely see it's effectiveness. It reinforces my opinion that if you study enough systems (easy to do in todays internet world ) you'll keep seeing (in the &quot;meat&quot; of each effective system)certain things that just plain work regardless of guru or system .



I've heard that Bruce Lee said something to the effect of using whatever works no matter it's source or something (probably not even close to the original quote - I know...) this makes more and more sense to me the longer I lift.
smile.gif
 
A great article around frequency and training.

The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode on muscle hypertrophy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sports Med. 2007;37(3):225-64.
The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans.

I thought I'd summarize this comprehensive paper both for my own benefit and for those who want the highlights. I've restricted my summary to the parts of the paper that talk about your typical &quot;dynamic external resistance&quot; training. The gist of the paper is that while we do know what works for hypertrophy (pretty much everything, to an extent), we really don't know what's optimal, especially in trained individuals and in the long run. Dan also posted some excerpts on his forum: http://hypertrophy-research.com/phpB...opic.php?t=213

Results
No relationship could be found between frequency of training and the increase per day in muscle cross sectional area. When the intensity was plotted against the rate of increase, a weak tendency was found for the rate to increase with increasing intensity. The highest rates of increase tended to occur around 75% of 1RM. When volume was plotted against the rate of increase, greater gains in muscle mass were seen initially with increasing volume while there were diminishing returns as the volume increased further. The highest rates of increase tended to occur with 30-60 repetitions per session.

Discussion
Frequency: For hypertrophy, studies suggest that training two or three times per week is superior to training one time per week, even when volume is equal. However, there doesn't appear to be a benefit of three sessions per week over two. &quot;Although some interesting trends can be discerned from the data... there is clearly a need for further research on training frequency in both highly-trained and less-trained subjects.&quot;

Intensity: &quot;The studies reviewed in this article show that there is a remarkably wide range of intensities that may produce hypertrophy. Still, there seems to be some relationship between the load (or torque) and the rate of increase in CSA.&quot; This is not linear, but seemed to peak around 75%. &quot;Thus, the results of this review support the typical recommendations with intensity levels of 70–85% of maximum when training for muscle hypertrophy, but also show that marked hypertrophy is possible at both higher and lower loads.&quot;

Volume: &quot;Overall, moderate volumes (&amp;#8776;30–60 repetitions per session for DER training) appear to yield the largest responses.&quot; An exception to this is with very high loads (90% 1RM or 120% to 230% 1RM with eccentrics) where high rates of growth have been shown with volumes as low as 12-14 repetitions per session. To date, relatively few studies have directly compared the effects of different volumes of work on the hypertrophic response as measured by scanning methodology.&quot; The paucity of data clearly warrants further research.

Mode of Training and Type of Muscle Action: You often hear statements like &quot;eccentric training produces the greatest muscle hypertrophy&quot;. &quot;This review demonstrates that given sufficient frequency, intensity and duration of work, all three types of muscle actions can induce significant hypertrophy at impressive rates and that at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training in this regard.&quot; In fact, the data suggest that pure eccentric training is inferior to both concentric and eccentric+concentric training, though this is still a subject of debate rather than a scientific certainty.

Rest Periods and the Role of Fatigue: &quot;Upon closer examination, it appears that when maximal or near-maximal efforts are used, it is advantageous to use long periods of rest. This is logical in light of the well known detrimental effects of fatigue on force production and electrical activity in the working muscle. If high levels of force and maximum recruitment of motor units are important factors in stimulating muscle hypertrophy, it makes sense to use generous rest periods between sets and repetitions of near-maximal to maximal efforts... On the other hand, when using submaximal resistance, the size principle dictates that motor unit recruitment and firing rates are probably far from maximal until the muscle is near fatigue or unless the repetitions are performed with the intention to execute the movement very quickly.&quot;

Interactions Between Frequency, Intensity, Volume and Mode: &quot;Based on the available evidence, we suggest that the time-tension integral is a more important parameter than the mechanical work output (force × distance)... Overall, we feel that the trends observed in this review are consistent with the model for training-overtraining continuum proposed by Fry,[186] where the optimal training volume and also the volume threshold for overtraining decreases with increasing intensity... Regarding training for hypertrophy in already highly-trained individuals, there is at present insufficient data to suggest any trends in the dose-response curves for the training variables.&quot;

Eccentrics: &quot;Taken together, the results of these studies support the common recommendation of using somewhat lower frequencies and volumes for high-force eccentric exercise than for conventional resistance training...&quot;

Order of endurance/strength training: &quot;It has been suggested that strength training should be performed first, in order not to compromise the quality of the strength-training session.[194] However, this order may not necessarily be the best choice for inducing increases in muscle mass. Deakin[195] investigated the impact of the order of exercise in combined strength and endurance training and reported that gene expression associated with muscle hypertrophy responded more strongly when cycling was performed before strength training, instead of vice versa. Interestingly, in the study of Sale et al.,[111] performing cycling first seemed to induce the greatest increase in muscle area. Still, because the lack of studies investigating the effects of the order of exercise in concurrent training on hypertrophy, no firm conclusions can be drawn on this issue.&quot;

Time Course of Muscle Hypertrophy: &quot;Until recently, the prevailing opinion has been that neural adaptations play the dominant role during the first 6–7 weeks of training, during which hypertrophy is usually minor.&quot; However, several investigations [13,27,54,87,105,118,128] have demonstrated significant hypertrophy at the whole muscle level after short periods of training (3–5 weeks). &quot;Thus, there now plenty of evidence that significant hypertrophy can take place early on given proper frequency, intensity and volume of training,&quot; even prior to changes in muscle CSA. &quot;As argued by Phillips,[198] the idea that early gains in strength are due exclusively to neural adaptations seems doubtful... In some strength-training studies, the increase in muscle volume is delayed, while in others, the rate of growth is rapid. We speculate that less-damaging training modes may allow the hypertrophy response to start earlier. Regimens that include eccentric muscle actions, especially those involving maximal effort, appear to require a careful initiation and progression of training to avoid muscle damage and muscle protein breakdown [excessive apoptosis and proteolysis].&quot;

The Stimulus for Muscle Hypertrophy in Strength Training: &quot;Two studies by Martineau and Gardiner[216,217] have provided insight into how different levels of force and different durations of tension may affect hypertrophic signaling in skeletal muscle... they remarked that both peak tension and time-tension integral must be included in the modeling of the mechanical stimulus response of skeletal muscle... Based on the data reviewed in this paper, we speculate that hypertrophic signalling in human skeletal muscle is very sensitive to the magnitude of tension developed in the muscle. Hence, for very short durations of work, the increase in muscle size will be greater for maximal-eccentric exercise than for maximal-concentric exercise of similar durations... The response is presumably also dependent on the total duration of work and increases initially with greater durations. Thus, both short durations of maximal eccentric exercise and somewhat longer durations of concentric, isometric and conventional dynamic resistance exercise can result in impressive increases in muscle volume. However, especially with maximal eccentric exercise, damage also seems to come into play as the duration of work increases even further and the acute and/or cumulative damage may eventually overpower the hypertrophic process.&quot;

Training Implications and Recommendations: For your typical &quot;dynamic external resistance&quot;, recommendations are given for &quot;Moderate load slow-speed training&quot;, &quot;Conventional hypertrophy training&quot;, and &quot;Eccentric (ecc) overload training&quot;. These three modes are denoted as suitable for beginners, novice-well trained, and advanced-elite, respectively. For the &quot;Conventional hypertrophy training&quot; for the novice to the well trained, they recommend an 8-10RM load (75-80% 1RM), with 8-10 reps to failure or near failure, 1-3 sets per exercise, progression from 1–2 to 3–6 sets total per muscle group, moderate velocity (1-2 seconds for each CON and ECC), 60-180 seconds rest between sets, and 2-3 sessions per muscle group per week.

Conclusions: &quot;This review demonstrates that several modes of training and all three types of muscle actions can induce hypertrophy at impressive rates and that, at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training. That said, it appears that exercise with a maximal-eccentric component can induce increases in muscle mass with shorter durations of work than other modes. Some evidence suggests that the training frequency has a large impact on the rate of gain in muscle volume for shorter periods of training. Because longer studies using relatively high frequencies are lacking, it cannot be excluded that stagnation or even overtraining would occur in the long term. Regarding intensity, moderately heavy loads seem to elicit the greatest gains for most categories of training, although examples of very high rates were noted at both very low and very high intensities when the sets were performed with maximum effort or taken to muscular failure. Thus, achieving recruitment of the greatest number of muscle fibres possible and exposing them to the exercise stimulus may be as important as the training load per se. For the total volume or duration of activity, the results suggest a dose-response curve characterised by an increase in the rate of growth in the initial part of the curve, which is followed by the region of peak rate of increase, which in turn is followed by a plateau or even a decline. It is recognised that the conclusions drawn in this paper mainly concern relatively short-term training in previously untrained subjects and that in highly trained subjects or for training studies extending for several months, the dose-response trends and the hypertrophic effects of different modes and types of strength training may be very different. The same may well be true for other populations, such as elderly and injured individuals.&quot;
___
 
I can't help thinking, with every innovation of CW, that he must sees his readers as &quot;lab rats&quot;...
I'm doing 8 sets of doubles - maybe that's the next step
rock.gif
. CW is fondling with the same good 10x3 principles. why?! deadline?! I'm guessing dan can change his routine to 21 reps, and later to 19... or 21.5...
I'm just saying that this should be a natural query for an advanced lifter - he (CW) can't call it &quot;news&quot;, there is nothing new under CW's sun.

joe. muscle,
because RUSS posted about singles (for advanced lifters), it should be said that the above research (already posted here, by you) refers to beginners, although there are some valid guidelines for advanced there. i have the full abstract version (40p), if you need it.
 
<div>
(Lol @ Sep. 29 2007,04:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There are some top bbers in Germany who have been using a system very similar to Dan's for a while now. I forget what they call their version of the system. Very similar to MaxStim though.</div>
I guess you're talking about PITT Force. Here's a German link:
http://www.pitt-force.com/
Sorry, I don't know any links in English referring to this topic.
sad.gif
 
<div>
(MoDog @ Oct. 03 2007,10:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Lol @ Sep. 29 2007,04:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There are some top bbers in Germany who have been using a system very similar to Dan's for a while now. I forget what they call their version of the system. Very similar to MaxStim though.</div>
I guess you're talking about PITT Force. Here's a German link:
http://www.pitt-force.com/
Sorry, I don't know any links in English referring to this topic.
sad.gif
</div>
Yeah, that's it MoDog. Thanks. I think there was a thread on the MaxStim site with a discussion between Dan and someone using PITT Force.
 
<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 30 2007,22:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Here's his original article from 2004.

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=459290&amp;cr=</div>
Until PITT and MS there were no programs designed exclusively around singles in pursuit of hypertrophy. Most felt that fatigue or endurance (lactic threshold) work was a necessity, even CW's earlier work that you've pointed too (apparently his newer stuff has shown a change of heart), this is the same for Staley's stuff. So yes, it was used for brief periods in time or within some type of periodized fashion but not exclusively.

Strength Training had been using singles, doubles and trips for ages, Dinosaur training is probably the most famous of these.

So whether it's PITT, MS, Staley or CW I'm glad it's getting attention.

The biggest issue I have with CW is his flavor of the week writing style, so far he's written programs for high volume/high fatigue, low volume/low fatigue, moderate volume/moderate fatigue and just about everything in between. It seems to me that if he was truly interested in substantiating his claims rather than hawking articles, books, Beta-7 and Surge, he could at least stick to one of them.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Oct. 06 2007,10:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The biggest issue I have with CW is his flavor of the week writing style, so far he's written programs for high volume/high fatigue, low volume/low fatigue, moderate volume/moderate fatigue and just about everything in between. It seems to me that if he was truly interested in substantitating his claims rather than hawking articles, books, Beta-7 and Surge, he could at least stick to one of them.</div>
Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark...!
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Oct. 05 2007,22:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The biggest issue I have with CW is his flavor of the week writing style, so far he's written programs for high volume/high fatigue, low volume/low fatigue, moderate volume/moderate fatigue and just about everything in between. It seems to me that if he was truly interested in substantitating his claims rather than hawking articles, books, Beta-7 and Surge, he could at least stick to one of them.</div>
I couldn't agree more.

And the bad thing about t-nation in general is that the are NOT under any circumstances open to debate.

They say they are and write articles about debating but it is always on there terms.

For example you are not allowed even in a polite way to challenge anyone or there studies.

Basically you have to agree with them or leave type website!

Secondly thing that agravates the hell out of me is how these guys WHORE the Biotest supplements.

TC always talks about how bad of a guy Bill Phillips was for starting EAS and being an ******* but I don't see how Biotest is any nicer....IMO
smile.gif
 
Back
Top