What do you guys think is better

<div>
(Old and Grey @ Feb. 10 2007,11:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have only seen one picture of Lyle but he didn't look like he ever touched a weight in that photo. That doesn't inspire me to switch programs although what he proposes isn't necessarily bad. I work out 4 times per week with 10 total sets each workout. I use 15, 12, 8 and 5 reps. I do not add extra sets for lower reps but, unlike vanilla HST, I use very high intensity. It's the program I have used so far.</div>
The little guy would have a hard time getting any attention from me when his bio says he has worked primarily with endurance athletes, a few powerlifters, and some bodybuilders. Next time I think about entering a triathlon (never), I'll look into his website more.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Feb. 10 2007,20:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Lyle has a photo of himself deadlifting, so obviously he has touched a weight.

Come on now, he's not a bodybuilder, so why would he be big? Being big seems kind of counter-productive for his sport. Anyway, he's helped a lot of guys who ARE big and who are probably bigger than you, so I think those results speak better than looking at how big he is.</div>
Blade and some other pretty strong folks over there seem to think he knows something.

I've seen that picture too. As I recall the story, he did compete in power lifting for a time, but decided that he was better suited to speed skating.
 
<div>
(stevejones @ Feb. 08 2007,19:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I vote for higher frequency with less volume. Just do less sets or lower the intensity on sets but keep the frequency 3 times per week. In Bryan's article on &quot;Planning Your Training Frequency: Timing is Everything&quot; he states that &quot;o science is telling us that training a muscle group approximately every 48 hours may be more effective than training it once or twice per week&quot;</div>
The study mentioned in the article talks about comparing once a week to three times a week, not twice a week. Interestingly, now that I read it again it also argues for one work set being as effective as three. However, if you read what was done in the study they were performing three different exercises involving largely the same muscles (bench press, incline dumbell press, and dumbell flyes). So it's sort of like comparing 3 sets per muscle to 9, not 1 compared to 3.

I think for HST style training where you do submax weights a lot of the time using a limited number of sets at least 3x/week is likely best. For another style of training it might not be.

Here's a curve ball...I've been &quot;hanging out&quot; at bb.com lately. There are lots of people there who haven't a clue, but if you look you can also find lots of really big, strong guys who got there doing HST, 5x5, Westside variants, 1x/week body part splits and other routines. I used to figure that guys who got big doing body part splits were all on steroids; now I'm not so sure. I know of at least one person whom I deem credible (as much as I can tell... this is the great anonymous internet), who has had good results as a natty working each muscle group 1x/week with a split.

So what about this: HST uses the SD to set up hopefully better results from submax loads. We all know this is somewhat controversial and full deconditioning won't take place for maybe a month or even longer. However, at least some here seem to report that they don't get the same results if they don't SD. What I've noticed about guys who do the body part splits each part 1x/week is they report a lot more DOMs than guys training with higher frequency.

Maybe they're getting some degree of SD-like effect. Remember when they do hit a muscle group they're usually hitting it hard with lots of sets and not light loads. So they wouldn't have to be as deconditioned as someone starting at well below their 15RM. So maybe what you lose from less frequent training may be offset by stronger signaling, not only from more workload but also some degree of deconditioning.

I don't know the answer, I'm just saying that this whole frequency/load/volume thing is complicated and I'm not sure that anyone has a theory yet that contains the whole answer.
 
Like you, I have studied alot LNT. And I still don't have the details nailed down.

All I know is that progressive load is the key to this whole game. Whatever routine is followed, as long as you are able to consistently add weight to the bar over time, it will work. This seems to be the best 'measuring stick' of training routines. As we all know if your routine has you lifting the same exact loads as you lifted a year ago, then it isn't working! Besides that, the rest of the game is mainly about diet. Add weight to the bar and eat enough to grow.
 
Yes, it is complicated and no one has a solid answer to anything.  That's why I dislike reading scientific studies.  I always overlook something or the person doing the study screws up something.  All I want are results, so I'm much better off scrambling around for different kinds of programs that have succeeded for people in the past, whether the programs are based on science or just some coach who developed a program and has witnessed success repeatedly is unimportant.  

People rag on bbing.com alot, but there is a ton of useful information on that site, and some very knowledgeable people.  Because the site has such a  huge membership, there are probably 5k annoying teenyboppers for every guy with good advice, so people get caught up in the idiocy there.  

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What I've noticed about guys who do the body part splits each part 1x/week is they report a lot more DOMs than guys training with higher frequency.</div>

I'm doing a program that sci muscle suggested (korte's 3x3).  I worked the same bodyparts the exact same way 3 times last week, and I am so sore I can barely move (and this is with submaximal weights-only 58%).  However, it's a new program for me and maybe I will no longer get DOMS once I have adapted.
 
<div>
(Ruthenian @ Feb. 08 2007,11:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think Lyle is the guy (at least one of them) on diet stuff, but I am not so sure I would consider him the expert on exercise routines.</div>
lyles formal education is in the exercise field, not the nutrition field.

The main reason he got into the nutrition side of thing is that the diet guy pulled out of a book and lyle took up the slack.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It's the program I have used so far.</div>

thats a useful opinion
 
Who knows?

I will say when I cut back on my bodypart split from 25 sets for chest and 16 sets for triceps on Day One to just 12 sets for chest and 9 for ticeps. I looked and felt way better. My muscle bellies swole up more and I just had a better look. Joints felt better too. I guess this only means one thing I was Severly overtraining!

Then I went from 12 sets once a week for Chest,BACK,Shoulders (no leg training at the time) to HST and I got stronger instantly and I felt better!

So I went from okay,good,to great with the 3 routines.

Now the only think I know now is that I look somewhat better than ever and I stay leaner (which is really a good thing all the time) but full body workouts for me are awesome b/c if I do miss a workout nothing goes lacking for the rest of the week.

I don't buy into the 1 set theory at all with HST I will be honest.

I personally don't know who anybody can grow from just 1 set! But its all what you consider 1 set. For example 1 set to me is a very light warmup or 2 and then just 1 set.

But to some people it might mean a warmup of 135, 200, 225, 275, 300 and then there work set of 375.

I know since I have finally cut my reps down to 20 after all of these years at HST per everyones recommendation its easier for me to gain strength, Way easier.

Am I enjoying the 20 reps...hell yeah....but I still have that old bodybuilding mentality that I have to fight off in my head everyday at the gym that makes me think MORE is better!
 
I believe if you check out Dan's site Hypertrophy-research.com you can see a good setup also for a upper lower split.

Again I don't think there is that big of a difference between 3 days and 2?
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Feb. 10 2007,21:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Lyle has a photo of himself deadlifting, so obviously he has touched a weight.

Come on now, he's not a bodybuilder, so why would he be big?  Being big seems kind of counter-productive for his sport.  Anyway, he's helped a lot of guys who ARE big and who are probably bigger than you, so I think those results speak better than looking at how big he is.</div>
Geez. Having a bad day, are we, Tot?

All I am saying is that I wouldn't follow a program that Pee Wee Herman touted either if my goal was hypertrophy. Nor would I have gone to someone like John Candy, who had a BMI and body fat percentage of about 45, for advice on proper diet. In my mind, you have to walk the walk before you can talk the talk. Lyle does the diet walk. Bryan does the exercise walk. If you believe otherwise, that's fine by me.
tounge.gif
 
I don't agree with judging a trainer by his cover..errr...physique.
Dan Moore is not the most muscular guy on this forum, but I have to admit I respect his opinion on training matters more highly than some of the hulks around here. Dan doesn't have the best bodybuilding genetics...and is a little lazy when it comes to application (sorry Dan, making a point here, go with it!
wink.gif
), but he knows what it takes to hypertrophy muscles more than just about anyone I know.

Anyway, if Lyle's weeny physique turns you off, then that is fine. But I wouldn't discount his training knoiwledge so easily.
 
Awesome post lifting. Yeh I agree that adding weight to the bar is the most important thing, every 3 days allows better strength recover for me when using 20 reps with max loads. I will post a pic soon, getting bigger (6'1 just weighed in at 243 after dinner!
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 11 2007,12:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't agree with judging a trainer by his cover..errr...physique.
Dan Moore is not the most muscular guy on this forum, but I have to admit I respect his opinion on training matters more highly than some of the hulks around here.</div>
I feel the same way. When it comes to exercise, I am going to take Dan's or Lyle's advice before anyone else on this forum, except Bryan. I don't really care how big the guy talking is... and funny thing, a lot of the guys who are ripping on people like Lyle for being small are under 200 lbs themselves (hint: under 200 lbs is small, unless you aren't very tall) and the whole &quot;you gotta be big to give advice&quot; just makes no sense to me.

As Lifting N Tx points out, there are some really big guys (Blade, Sporto, etc) who, for some strange reason, think that Lyle knows what he is talking about. The guys who say they won't listen to Lyle's opinion on exercise because Lyle is smaller than them are smaller than guys like Blade, etc who do trust Lyle... so who is more correct here? Going by the bro-logic, since Blade trusts in Lyle and Blade is huge, that would suggest that Lyle knows what he is talking about, because the guys who are ripping on Lyle are smaller than Blade, thus their opinions are not as valid as Blade's... Ugh, it doesn't make any sense? Maybe that's because it's not logical to approach things in this way?
 
<div>
(Old and Grey @ Feb. 11 2007,11:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Lyle does the diet walk. Bryan does the exercise walk. If you believe otherwise, that's fine by me.
tounge.gif
</div>
As Aaron already pointed out, Lyle's education is actually in exercise, not diet. Bryan seems to think Lyle knows what he is taking about... weird, huh, seeing as how Lyle is a tiny little peewee herman?

I'd trust Aaron about nutrition and such, considering that is what he does. Sure, he's not John Candy, even though many here would call him at least a little bit fat. Guess that makes me a retard or something.

You'd listen to Dan's advice even though he's not huge, right?

But whatever, it doesn't matter. I just don't think people should say &quot;Person X is small, so don't listen to them&quot; when they haven't even bothered to listen to what Person X has had to say.
 
If you were a carpenter working on the framing of a very large and complicated house, and some guy comes up and starts telling you what to do, are you going to pay attention to him if all he's ever built is crap that falls apart ? I don't care how smart or intelligent he seems, I'd rather listen to the guy who has built some solid houses. Of course, if the guy has advised alot of carpenters and their **** is impressive, then that's a different story. Bottom line-it's all about his results. What does his house or the houses of the other guys look like ? In bbing, your house is your body. In powerlifting, your house is the weight you put up.
 
<div>
(stevejones @ Feb. 12 2007,10:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If you were a carpenter working on the framing of a very large and complicated house, and some guy comes up and starts telling you what to do, are you going to pay attention to him if all he's ever built is crap that falls apart ?  I don't care how smart or intelligent he seems, I'd rather listen to the guy who has built some solid houses. Of course, if the guy has advised alot of carpenters and their **** is impressive, then that's a different story.  Bottom line-it's all about his results.  What does his house or the houses of the other guys look like ?  In bbing, your house is your body.  In powerlifting, your house is the weight you put up.</div>
and when I worked in the building industry, I had never ever built a house, but I told people how to.

because thats what I was trained (and paid) to do
 
<div>
(stevejones @ Feb. 11 2007,21:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bottom line-it's all about his results.</div>
I completely agree with that but would add that for a coach I would say the results of his client's are more important than his own results.

For example with Lyle, he's training for speed skating as far as I'm aware so his results are irrelevant for power lifters/body builders. I do believe he previously trained for body building and power lifting but openly admits at the time he was not following the training and nutrition ideas that he now espouses.

I guess the ideal though is to have someone who knows all the science, is huge and ripped and has a client base of Arnie clones!

Cheers

Rob
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">and when I worked in the building industry, I had never ever built a house, but I told people how to.

because thats what I was trained (and paid) to do</div>


Of course, if the guy has advised alot of carpenters and their **** is impressive, then that's a different story.  Bottom line-it's all about his results.  What does his house or the houses of the other guys look like ?  In bbing, your house is your body.  In powerlifting, your house is the weight you put up.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">but would add that for a coach I would say the results of his client's are more important than his own results.</div>
Yep, I agree
 
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Feb. 11 2007,21:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For what its worth. I am a financial advisor, but I am not a millionaire just yet!</div>
Good example Joe, it's the same situation with me

hmmmm...come to think of it maybe we are doing something wrong!
wow.gif
rock.gif
mad.gif
laugh.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top