Reactive Training Systems

oldlifter50 · Newbie

RE: Frequency of training to get Big Squats !!!!!!!!!

Tom Harrier · Member

One major point yet to be addressed is if the lifter is drug-free or not. This is a critical factor that is rarely, if ever brought out when comparing or contrasting various training methodologies.   Many, if not most of the training regimens that are advocated by those using steroids cannot be used by those who are drug-free, primarily due to the inability to recuperate. I speak from personal experience as a former steroid user and, as a lifter who has squatted over 800 drug-free in the 90's, when suits were no where near as supportive as today's suits.

Having used steroids from 1978 through May of 1987, I could train as many sets as I was in the mood for and frequency was never an issue. In fact, the training regimen is not as important as what you are cycling and what amounts you are taking. In 1981-1982, I was going to the top steroid doctor in the country in Los Angeles. You'd walk into his office and it was a "Who's who" in the waiting room of bodybuilders, powerlifters, NFL players and even NBA players. (Why are NBA players never questioned about 'roids? Have you seen the builds of today's players?). I'll never forget his telling me if I wasn't gaining at least 10 pounds per week on my bench during a training cycle, we needed to change what I was taking.   However, when I chose to quit in 1987, prior to steroids becoming a controlled substance in Florida in October of that year, I found out very quickly how much I had depended on steroids for the last 9 years. Within 4 months, weights I had been benching for 15 reps, I now struggled to hit a good single. For 5 YEARS, I tried to figure out how to regain some semblance of my former steroid-assisted strength. The greatest problem I faced was trying to use the same routines I had used for so many years, but with little success. My best steroid-assisted squat was 700; my best bench was 500 and my best DL was 615 (DL always was my nemisis).

Then, I started thinking about some of the principles of Arthur Jones and the training succcess of Dorian Yates and the Mentzer brothers. Yes, they were juicing, but what if the key for the drug-free lifter was a brief, high-intenisty work out? The greater the stress; the heavier the work-out, the less the frequency would be. The University of Florida had just come out with research establishing that strength gains could be made with a once-per-week work out. That's when I went to the once-per-week squat work-out, with two working sets per work out. My entire work out consisted of 6 sets, including 4 warm-up sets. When I squatted 827.5, the week before the meet, my work out was 245x5, 335x3, 425x1, 475x1, 765x5 (wraps, straps), 565x8, (straps down, no wraps). All sets were done with no wraps, with the exception of the heavy working set. Now here is the part that is hard for some to accept. In a meet, my first two attempts were EXACTLY as what I had done for my last two sets in the gym, exluding the down set. I opened at 475 with no wraps and an old suit, so as to get my depth. I then put on my meet suit and went to 765 for my second. Then, it was maximum attempt for my third, based on 15 pounds per rep on my working set, not counting the 1st rep.

My former training partner, Mike Francis, who is life-time drug-free and has probably squatted 800+ and totalled 2000+ more times than any other legitimate drug-free lifter in the world, did less than I did! He only did ONE working set of 2-3 reps, as he hates anything over 3 reps. Keep in mind, these were the done with Champion Suits and/or Titan New Centurion single-ply suits, back in 1998. However, after sustaining a horrific injury in 2003, my heavy squatting days are over with. Mike, however, continues to squat heavy and recently hit a 735 raw squat, (wraps only) at the age of 49. I believe he will hit 770 before the year is over with. I have trained several others over the years in a similar fashion, with similar results.

My personal opinion is, the Westside methods, which I believe are without question, some of the best training methods in the world, are simply not conducive for the drug-free lifter. I don't mean the bands or chains, because those I do agree with. Bands, chains and training in a close-to-meet tightness bench shirt (thanks to Jim Parrish for that) have allowed me to reach a 520 lb drug-free Bench Press at age 54, which I hope to beat in two weeks.  What I am talking about is the incredible amount of volume, changing exercises so as to not overload the CNS, speed work, etc. If the work out is kept brief and the lifter goes heavy no more than once per week, I believe it's extremely difficult to overload the CNS. And by the way, I do train the bench twice a week, one heavy, one medium and all but two working sets are done in a Smith Machine! Yep, that's right! A 500+ drug-free lifter, over age 50, and I'm training in a Smith Machine. Why? Because I train by myself as well and this is the safest way for me to train and, with the way I have developed it, it would appear to work. But, if anyone is interested, I can get in to the bench training methods another time.

The bottom line is, when you're looking at the training methods of the top powerlifters, before you try and duplicate that same training regimine, factor in whether or not they're drug-free; if they compete in a legitimate drug-free federation to achieve the results they posted and if their routine makes sense based on what your training has taught you. For the drug-free lifter, I believe in GILT; Greater Intensity, Less Training.

Date: Jul 4, 2009

Tom,
I understand what you're trying to say and in no way am I trying to negate the results you've experienced. I may come off as a know-it-all for this, but we're all just trying to pass along the knowledge we've aquired and pursue some truth.

The thing that makes training difficult is that you can't take anything in isolation. Every choice you make echos through the rest of your life -- each to varying degrees. Tom, in your case I'd say 10 years of steroid use likely had permenant effects on your endocrine system. If you have permenantly lower testosterone levels, then you likely wouldn't be able to recover from higher volumes. Now, I don't know this for a fact, but it is a documented phenomenon and could explain your experience (unless, of course, you had tests to proove otherwise).

We as powerlifters make a lot of assumptions. Two heavy workouts in a week "burn out" the CNS... how do we know? Multiple set workouts lead to overtraining... how do we know? I have measured the output of my nervous system using various testing devices and I have found without a shadow of a doubt that for my body, intensity will not "burn out" my CNS. The specific nature of training that produces overtraining (and the kind of overtraining it produces) varies from person to person. When I get TRAC online, you will be able to tell for certain whether you are actually over-stressing the systems of the body (and which systems are being taxed), or if you are just not as motivated on a particular day.

I don't think you could classify me as a "volume guy" or an "intensity guy". I program training to fit the needs of the athlete. They have to be able to handle the training. Also, I know you weren't taking a shot at any athletes in particular, but I know many truly drug-free athletes who train with high volumes and frequencies -- some of them ridiculously so. And they make gains doing it as well. Just another reason that the training needs to be fully and completely customized to fit the individual.

Tom Harrier · Member

Some good points, Mike. To answer a couple of your questions, while on steroids, which were extremely light cycles by today's standards, I had bloodwork done after every cycle and there was never any significant changes in anything, LDL's aside. I don't think there were any long-term effects on testosterone production, as my libido returned to normal within a year of terminating my usage. Certainly, to be able to achieve a drug-free squat of 805 at 275 and 827.5 at 290 would indicate a fairly normal testosterone production. Besides using the suits of the 90's and Super Wrap 3's, which are archaic by today's equipment, I should also mention when I hit the 827.5, I was the meet director and ended up having to help unload the weight truck 2 hours before I squatted, which cut short my goal of 845.

You asked "How do we know" regarding whether or not the high-volume, multi-heavy sets per week work for the drug-free lifter? I can only answer by my own empirical studies with many drug-free lifters who tried the Westside methods and not one of them had success. There typically would be an initial sudden burst of strength increase for the first 2-3 weeks, followed by a plateau for 2-3 weeks, then followed by a decrease in strength. During that 3rd phase, most of the lifters described themselves as being "burnt out" or fatigued. Certainly, that would indicate to me a strain on the CNS system.

But there is without a doubt, a need to identity what each individual responds best to in this sport. There may be those who have the genetic make-up to not only respond to that type of training drug-free, but thrive on it. Because I have yet to see it, doesn't mean that person doesn't exist. What I am saying is, if two guys in their 40's in the 275 lb class continued to hit 800+ drug-free squats, perhaps there is something to this. Both of us tried the "other" methods, with the same results described above. It's an answer to a question asked at the beginning of this post and it's what worked fairly well for us.

Binford · Senior Member

I've heard the westside methods is not conducive to drug free lifters a million times and that statement is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. While I dont find westside methods to be the most optimal out there, I have seen many many MANY drug free lifters have great success with the westside methods, including myself. I went from at 1380 total to a 1618 total in the same weight class in around 2 years absolutely drug free. The only thing that prompted me to switch from the westside methods was my lack of technique in gear.

Now i use block periodization utilitizing the submaximal approach most often and there are many blocks of training where i will utilitize high volume and high frequency. In a three week block it is not uncommon for me to squat, bench, and deadlift three times per week and perform more than 300 barbell lifts above the 80% mark. I have hit the numbers in training to hit a 1755 total, also in the same weight class as the 1618 total and still drug free, i just have yet to put it together on the platform (which we all know is the hardest part).

We should definately take it into considering when looking at a persons training that they may only be making gaines because they are using drugs. But my point of this rant is basically that regardless of the use of drugs or not, the human body is an amazing thing and can adapt to amazing things. I've switched from the ME and DE methods where i mostly squatted, benched and deadlift once per week, to now doing each lift as much as three times per week in certain blocks. In fact, from observations i have made, people that are using drugs dont have to train as hard or as often to make gains because they have an obvious advantage.

Mike Tuchscherer · Guru

Fundamentally, I'm with Binford on this one. There is a huge range of what the body can adapt to. That said, it seems we are all recognizing the role that individual differences play in this equation. It's obviously possible that some may need the low volumes that Tom is talking about, but equally possible that some can tolerate the high frequency and high volumes that Binford talks about. I'll go one further and say that which one you can tolerate has a lot to do with how you train (i.e. which one is best for you is a trainable response).

Tom, I appreciate the candor regarding your previous steroid protocols. That, in anybody's mind, should satisfy the "how do you know" question. This is a hugely complicated puzzle and it's likely that it wasn't any one factor alone that was the problem. And I won't be so arrogant as to assume I know what the causes were. The important thing is that you adapted your training to fit your needs and had success. And that's what I'm all about.

Tom Harrier · Member

Mike,

We both omitted a significant factor in this; our ages. At 23, you're at your prime in testosterone production and we all know the major role testosterone has in recuperation. Obviously, a younger man will have much greater recuperative powers than an older lifter. I, however, quit using steroids at age 32 and with my body having been dependent on steroids for the last 10 years for gains, I was at a complete loss on how to train, especially following the 5 month crash after going off. I thought it was all mental and felt I could compensate by greater volume and frequency and failed miserably. It wasn't until around '92, at age 37, that I started decreasing the volume, shortening the work-outs and increasing the intensity. Age 42 is when I hit the 805 squat and age 43 is when I hit the 827.5. Here's what's frustrating; I only benched 470 at age 43, weighing 290 lbs and all the while, I had one of the greatest drug-free benchers of the time, Larry Arthurs, telling me for years to train in a shirt, increase the weight and decrease the volume. Now, here I am, 11 years later and 42 lbs lighter, benching 50 lbs more and hoping to move that up in 2 weeks. What could I have benched back then, had I taken Larry's advice? I think 600 would not have been out of reach. Ask Jim Ray how much his bench would decrease if he dropped 42 lbs. Right now, Mike, you're not affected by declining testosterone levels and I think you may find that when you are, you'll find yourself shifting over to a similar work out. A case in point is, Mike Francis, who I mentioned earlier. Mike has trained and competed in gear for 24 years and just started training for raw competition 4 months ago. 3 weeks ago, in the 275 lb class, he hit a 705 raw squat, sans wraps, which is, I believe, the same weight you hit at the Raw Unity meet in January. Keep in mind, Mike is 49 years old and life-time drug free! I believe he will go well over 750 before the year is over with.

Mike, I can tell you do a considerable amount of research on training and your approach is cerebral as much as physical. With that in mind, please check out this link: http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/rea/chemical-concepts-of-bodybuilding.htm I would ask that you take note of the 8-week study. This is only one of many studies that support what I said previously, in spite of that comment being "the dumbest thing ever heard".

Binford, please let me apoligize for having the audacity to offer my opinion here. Obviously, my 31 years of training, competing, owning a powerlifter's gym, training numerous powerlifters, high school, collegiate and professional football players; having won numerous state, national and world championships and having established numerous records in each; having been published in Powerlifting USA; all that pales in comparison to your vast experience and success in lifting. If only those of us who have set world records using those training methods, after failing with the Westside methods, had spoken with you first, we would have realized just how dumb we were. I mean, after all, the closest I ever came to your 1618 total was 320 lbs short at age 43 and....oh wait, that was my sub-total. Never mind. The point is, anyone who is omniscient, such as yourself, I will certainly defer to your sage wisdom in the future. Thank you for putting me in my place. I'm sure I can learn much from you.

Mike, one last item. I watched your videos on how to put on a bench shirt. I also use a Katana in training, (size 50 for training, 48 for competition). However, I found it much easier to split the back of the shirt, leaving only the last 6 inches and then, sewing a lock to keep it from splitting anymore. As you're aware, the back does not offer any support. With this, I can simply step into the shirt, pull it up, work it on my arms and then, when I finish, just pull the arms off and step out of it. It is considerably easier than what you showed in the videos. Give it at try; you'll find it a lot easier.

Binford · Senior Member

Tom,

I did not mean to come of as all knowing because I am obviously not, i'm still a young man in this sport and have alot to learn. I just completely hate the old argument that westside is not conducive to drug free lifters, because its just not true. I can completely agree however that the westside methods are not for everyone, but I dont think the use or not use of drugs decides whether the westside methods are for you or not.

I'm just not as politically correct as Mike in my arguments :). When I disagree with something I tend to come off just as you said, all knowing, which in all reality there is much that I do not know and I'll be the first to tell you. I also was not by any means bragging about my total which it seems you might think, because that total is in double ply gear which doesn't really equate to much of a total at all. I was just simply using it as a way to show improvement while using the westside methods as a drug free lifter.

briangodsen · Senior Member

Why can't all forums be this warm and fuzzy?

Tom Harrier · Member

Binford,

I appreciate your sincere response. And, after all these years, I'm still learning, too. Because the body is constantly changing, I think we have to continuously evolve with our training as well.

Please overlook my somewhat brusque response. 33+ years in law enforcement tends to bring out the "attitude" on occasion. I look forward to many more exchanges with you in the future.

Date: Jul 8, 2009

I agree that age is a significant factor.
The training process tries to take a list of circumstances and design the best training to fit those circumstances. As circumstances change, so must training. So, yes, of course as I age I will have to change my training. But there are other things that can be done to keep work capacity high if thats what the lifter needs to improve.
See, really our discussion centers around the volume/intensity balance in training. You can only handle so much stress in your life. Training stress is only one component of this. And your training stress will mostly be decided by the volume and intensity of training (and just for the record intensity has to be defined as % of 1RM). Intensity of training will go a long way in determining the training effect. For example, training at 60% of 1RM will produce less maximal strength gain than training at 85% of 1RM. So you decide your intensity based on your desired training effect. Then you do enough volume to fill your training stress. So volume is really dependant on the other things not a means to an end in itself. To complicate the problem further, your desired frequency will also play a roll in how much stress you can recover from / how much volume is appropriate.
Regarding the study
First, I recognize how difficult it is to write something that can stand up to scrutiny from educated people. But its still my responsibility to point out logical/other issues.
Its been shown through rather extensive research that one cannot change their actual fiber makeup. The fiber ratios you have are the ones you have. You can, however, somewhat alter their characteristics through training meaning that you can help slow twitch (not twist) fibers contract faster, but they cannot become fast twitch fibers. He also mentions something about altering your genetic makeup, which to my knowledge, is impossible without gene therapy.
Those minor points aside (and they are minor relative to his larger point), the study itself is interesting.
He mentions a study done with one group using 100% of a 3RM (approx 90%) and the other using 70% of a 3RM (approx 63%). He does not mention what the set-rep protocols are, which is very important to validating the applicability of the test. Its worth mentioning, however, that 63% of a 1RM is considered warm up weight to most powerlifters. Its very easy. So unless they were doing 10 rep sets (which would have been noteworthy), the second group was working VERY sub-maximally.
I have other criticisms of this article, but Im going to leave them for another time as Im already getting very long-winded.
I would ask you to read this article on a similar topic: http://www.elitefts.com/documents/the_big_t.htm
I dont agree with everything in this article, but when I glanced over it, it looked a bit more applicable to a lifter (in my opinion at least).
And I guess none of this really matters anyway. Its fairly well documented that the more muscle fibers that are recruited in a training session, the greater the hormonal response. Also, maybe Landon Evans will chime in here, but in the meantime, Ill speak for him.
Landon has a means of determining the function of his hormonal axis in real time. He did a block of training with the intent to cause an anabolic hormone release and it centered around multiple rep sets (I think around 10, which would qualify as moderate to low intensity) taken to near-failure. There were many sets, too (around 6 if I remember correctly) and the frequency was twice per week. If it didnt work, Landon would have been able to tell immediately using his testing protocols.

Also, I used to split the back of my shirts, but then I couldnt wear them in competition. I came up with this so I could wear my contest shirts even if I was training by myself.

Tom Harrier · Member

Kraemer's studies wouldn't apply to my thoughts on the duration, number of sets or intensity. In the squat, the maximum # of sets I performed was 2; the first working set being 4-6 reps; the second set 8-9 in either shorts and no wraps or, loose suit with straps down, no wraps. For Mike Francis, it was one set of 2-3 reps. Keep in mind; these sets were maximum effort or a "10" on your scale of difficulty. The rest period between my two sets was close to 15 minutes, as I needed that much time to recuperate. No way could I have done 3-5 sets with 3 minutes rest in between. My work output would have been at a minimum, both from a physical standpoint, as well as a mental standpoint. By the time I got to my first working set, it was probably about the 30th time I had done it that week, with the first 29 times being a mental rehearsal. Without the intensity I had built up for that primary working set, I probably couldn't have singled it. With that kind of exertion, it calls into question if anymore is necessary. The only reason I did the down sets without the wraps was to strengthen my knees and, to gain a bit more endurance.

Certainly this training validates the training methodologies touted by Arthur Jones and Dr. Darden, in terms of intensity and limited volume. However, I found that for the bigger lifts, i.e., the squat and deadlift, once per week was enough. I have changed my bench, though. For the last two years, I train it twice per week; heavy on Monday and arm benches (feet off the floor, supported by a bench) on Wednesday. Monday consists of a single, a double, a set of 5-6 (all with 50 Katana, from the Smith Machine) and a set of 6-8 raw. Tuesday, the arm benches are with doubled tan bands, with chains; one set of 7-9, one set of 5-6 (using old denim shirt) and one set of 12-15 raw. Again, all of these sets are done with the legs supported by a bench, so that there is no leg drive. I first thought about this, after recalling many years ago when I judged at a bench contest for paraplegics. I was astounded by the incredible strength in their benches, with only arm/shoulder/chest drive being used. At that time, I was hitting close to 500 raw (steroid-assisted) and one of the benchers, who had benched 455, challenged me to try benching off of their lifting table. By the time I got to 405, it was all I could to do gut out a hard single! When I started utilizing arm benches two years ago, along with training in the bench shirt, my bench took off, allowing me to go from a 430 bench in June of 2007 to a bench of 520 in December of 2007. Unfortunately, I let a "guru" talk me out of using the arm benches and into using my legs in both workouts. The result was, an increase, a plateau, a significant decrease and a resulting injury because of trying to overcompensate. I hit a 520 again in August of 2008, 500 on a bad day in December and haven't competed since. My next competition is the 18th of this month, so we'll see what happens then.

Mike Tuchscherer · Guru

I think we're confusing terminology a little here. Where you say "intensity", it looks like you mean "intensiveness" -- or Efforts, as I call it. No doubt you also did work at a high intensity (percent of 1RM), but the heightened psychological state is almost always associated with high Efforts. High efforts will result in greater stress to the body and take longer to recover. That keeps with the basic principles of training, however, there are some things you cannot do using this method. IMO, a hormonal response is among them, as well as creating more significant hypertrophy, improved energy reserves,etc. But you obviously have success with this method, so what I would suggest is a phased approach. Train with moderate intensities for part of your cycle and higher intensities and efforts as the contest gets closer.

I forgot to mention another problem I had with the studies (both sets of them, actually). Neither account for the specific response to the individual's training history. Granted, this would be very hard to do, but if you don't, then you incorrectly assume prior training has no effect on current training/future results.

And for the record, I like the idea of doing some bench work with feet up. This isn't the first time I heard of someone having good results from it. I may have to give it a try to see for myself.

JordanLinteris · Senior Member

Mike,
You sure you are not a 40 year old doctor hiding in a 25 year old's body?

Mike Tuchscherer · Guru

25?! Are you kidding? I'm 24! ...what a jerk...

(hahaha, I'm hilarious)