or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Random health and exercise thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random health and exercise thoughts - Page 2638

post #39556 of 57259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelman 17 View Post


Is this truth? Will lifts be better preserved on a cut by a low volume / high weight routine vs. higher volume / lower weight? It feels like the latter might at least result in better physique.

the general thought is that for naturals - strength = size. 

By going for lower weights on a deficit, there is a risk that you strength and thus muscle mass. You also have to gain back that strength later on which is a "waste" of time.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarude View Post

i dont know about lifts being preserved but i looked way better when doing high volume with lower weights when cutting.

conventional e-lifting wisdom says stick with low volume when cutting, but IME big strong lifts that you need to get psyched up for are what drain me and impede progress, even moreso on a deficit. cruising through some 3x10, 3x10, 3x10 is a little easier on the brain and a little nicer in the mirror.

 

Isn't that just due to the muscles holding more fluid (being more pumped) from the high volume though? Not questioning that you won't look better, just saying that its water and nothing else. 

 

Also, higher volume will def have you burn more calories, putting you in a bigger deficit = faster weight and fat loss in comparison to lower volume. 

 

Another reason lower volume is recommended, is that most people reduce mostly carbs when they cut. Carbs are the bodys preferred fuel source and a higher intake has you tolerating higher volume a lot more due to higher endurance. Pure strength is not related to endurance in the same way so it could still be pushed hard.

 

I could be wrong here, but that's just how I think about it logically.

post #39557 of 57259
Quote:
Originally Posted by conceptionist View Post

the general thought is that for naturals - strength = size. 
By going for lower weights on a deficit, there is a risk that you strength and thus muscle mass. You also have to gain back that strength later on which is a "waste" of time.

Isn't that just due to the muscles being more full from the pump though?  Also, higher volume will def have you burn more calories, putting you in a bigger deficit = faster weight and fat loss in comparison to lower volume. 

Another reason lower volume is recommended, is that most people reduce mostly carbs when they cut. Carbs are the bodys preferred fuel source and a higher intake has you tolerating higher volume a lot more due to higher endurance. Pure strength is not related to endurance in the same way so it could still be pushed hard.

I could be wrong here, but that's just how I think about it logically.

being pumped has a lot to do with it, for sure. i also felt a big difference in performance after a carb-up or big over-maintenance day, to lend credence to the effect of carb reduction. with that being said, trying to sustain progress or even maintain with heavy weights was pretty punishing for me mentally, whereas eking out "one more rep" with lighter weights wasn't as much of a task.

i dont think its a right/wrong thing, nor do i think it has to be a binary thing that has to be decided upon - low volume/heavier weights vs higher volume/lighter weights. i think it would be prudent to continue training as normal and then adjust the volume of high-intensity sets (not all sets) downwards or limit the amount of "psyche-up" moments as progress starts to stall. i think the "carbs are energy, high volume requires more energy, therefore low carbs and high volume = bad" is a little simplistic. in my experience, calories had the biggest effect on gaining strength at low rep ranges. with a lack of calories, being able to maintain volume at a high level of intensity/low rep range was difficult. being able to maintain volume at a lower level of intensity was much easier. based on how i feel on a calorie deficit, trying to do 5's weekly was tough. i would rather do 1x3 / 1x2 / 1x2 and then 3x8-10 rather than trying to maintain 5x5 or 3x5 or 2x5 every week.

as far as the losing strength thing goes - i don't think that's nearly as big of an issue as its made out to be. continuing to train in a calorie deficit is the important thing; nobody's going to be performing post-cut as they were pre-cut regardless of what parameters they use. simply because absolute strength is explicitly defined in terms of a 1rm doesn't mean training with low reps is mutually exclusive to maintaining or improving in that particular range; higher rep ranges with lighter weights at greater volumes also provide benefit to said strength, albeit differently. i dont think someone who chose 3x10 versus 2x5 for squats would be all that far behind, if at all, when it came time to bulk again. once the calories come back, the volume on higher intensity lifts will come back also.
post #39558 of 57259
Reverse pyramid training = nice mix of both
post #39559 of 57259
Amazing that a race that goes over an hour comes down to tenths of seconds.
post #39560 of 57259
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarude View Post


being pumped has a lot to do with it, for sure. i also felt a big difference in performance after a carb-up or big over-maintenance day, to lend credence to the effect of carb reduction. with that being said, trying to sustain progress or even maintain with heavy weights was pretty punishing for me mentally, whereas eking out "one more rep" with lighter weights wasn't as much of a task.

i dont think its a right/wrong thing, nor do i think it has to be a binary thing that has to be decided upon - low volume/heavier weights vs higher volume/lighter weights. i think it would be prudent to continue training as normal and then adjust the volume of high-intensity sets (not all sets) downwards or limit the amount of "psyche-up" moments as progress starts to stall. i think the "carbs are energy, high volume requires more energy, therefore low carbs and high volume = bad" is a little simplistic. in my experience, calories had the biggest effect on gaining strength at low rep ranges. with a lack of calories, being able to maintain volume at a high level of intensity/low rep range was difficult. being able to maintain volume at a lower level of intensity was much easier. based on how i feel on a calorie deficit, trying to do 5's weekly was tough. i would rather do 1x3 / 1x2 / 1x2 and then 3x8-10 rather than trying to maintain 5x5 or 3x5 or 2x5 every week.

as far as the losing strength thing goes - i don't think that's nearly as big of an issue as its made out to be. continuing to train in a calorie deficit is the important thing; nobody's going to be performing post-cut as they were pre-cut regardless of what parameters they use. simply because absolute strength is explicitly defined in terms of a 1rm doesn't mean training with low reps is mutually exclusive to maintaining or improving in that particular range; higher rep ranges with lighter weights at greater volumes also provide benefit to said strength, albeit differently. i dont think someone who chose 3x10 versus 2x5 for squats would be all that far behind, if at all, when it came time to bulk again. once the calories come back, the volume on higher intensity lifts will come back also.

 

Of course its easier to maintain volume at a lower intensity, that speaks for itself. You can't go balls to the wall and increase both. Then your frequency has to come down. I'm sure you now about the interplay between frequency / intensity / volume. The body's recovery is biologically a zero sum game so one of the two has to go down if you have less energy or you don't reduce your frequency. Then again, there's loads of other parameters besides frequency, volume and intensity that has to be taken into consideration, such as the "psyching up" for heavy lifts, which will worsen your mental recovery like you say.

 

Isn't 1x3 / 1x2 /1x2 higher intensity than 5x5 / 3x5 / 2x5 though? I would argue that it is, and down sets are pretty much always used when you lift for singles and triples as a mean to get in adequate volume that you lose from only doing singles, doubles, triples.

 

I agree on the last section. Just plug in your given weight for 3x5 into a 1RM calculator and then your 3x10 and it'll probably be very close. I'm honestly not sure how the reasoning goes there, except that lower energy levels would have your higher rep sets suffering more than low rep sets due to emptier glycogen stores and so on. If you can complete both alternatives equally easy (or rather, without one of the rep schemes being much more negatively effected by your energy levels), then they should no doubt lead to equal strength gains.

post #39561 of 57259
+1 on both, I do only compounds but vary between low rep and high rep work on upper body stuff
post #39562 of 57259
Quote:
Originally Posted by conceptionist View Post

Of course its easier to maintain volume at a lower intensity, that speaks for itself. You can't go balls to the wall and increase both. Then your frequency has to come down. I'm sure you now about the interplay between frequency / intensity / volume. The body's recovery is biologically a zero sum game so one of the two has to go down if you have less energy or you don't reduce your frequency. Then again, there's loads of other parameters besides frequency, volume and intensity that has to be taken into consideration, such as the "psyching up" for heavy lifts, which will worsen your mental recovery like you say.

Isn't 1x3 / 1x2 /1x2 higher intensity than 5x5 / 3x5 / 2x5 though? I would argue that it is, and down sets are pretty much always used when you lift for singles and triples as a mean to get in adequate volume that you lose from only doing singles, doubles, triples.

I agree on the last section. Just plug in your given weight for 3x5 into a 1RM calculator and then your 3x10 and it'll probably be very close. I'm honestly not sure how the reasoning goes there, except that lower energy levels would have your higher rep sets suffering more than low rep sets due to emptier glycogen stores and so on. If you can complete both alternatives equally easy (or rather, without one of the rep schemes being much more negatively effected by your energy levels), then they should no doubt lead to equal strength gains.

not necessarily - smooth singles/doubles/triples before doing rep work don't have to be absolute grinders. multiple sets of 5 of a deficit typically are, at least in my experience. the willpower required to grind through multiple 5's is far higher than a one-and-done set.

i don't exactly buy into the whole reasoning behind not doing higher reps because lower glycogen stores negatively affect your performance at higher reps. i mean, sure it affects your performance negatively - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't train with higher rep ranges altogether. my point is that calorie deficits affect training negatively at all rep ranges, however, the mental taxation of heavier weights in conjunction with the calorie deficit is much more of a detriment than "only" the negative effects of a calorie deficit at higher ranges. this is why i'd rather hit a smooth single/double/triple to and then work with something easier than 3x5.

with all of that said though, this is only when progress really starts to slow - personally, i'd stick with 2x5 for as long as i could, then 2x3, 2x2, and then shift into one set of heavier weights before doing straight volume. i dont think it really matters too much in the end. training hard and being consistent with diet counts for more than whatever scientific/nonscientific reasoning behind doing either method, and whatever benefits one method may have over another are probably not as clear as anyone would have you believe.
post #39563 of 57259
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarude View Post


not necessarily - smooth singles/doubles/triples before doing rep work don't have to be absolute grinders. multiple sets of 5 of a deficit typically are, at least in my experience. the willpower required to grind through multiple 5's is far higher than a one-and-done set.

i don't exactly buy into the whole reasoning behind not doing higher reps because lower glycogen stores negatively affect your performance at higher reps. i mean, sure it affects your performance negatively - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't train with higher rep ranges altogether. my point is that calorie deficits affect training negatively at all rep ranges, however, the mental taxation of heavier weights in conjunction with the calorie deficit is much more of a detriment than "only" the negative effects of a calorie deficit at higher ranges. this is why i'd rather hit a smooth single/double/triple to and then work with something easier than 3x5.

with all of that said though, this is only when progress really starts to slow - personally, i'd stick with 2x5 for as long as i could, then 2x3, 2x2, and then shift into one set of heavier weights before doing straight volume. i dont think it really matters too much in the end. training hard and being consistent with diet counts for more than whatever scientific/nonscientific reasoning behind doing either method, and whatever benefits one method may have over another are probably not as clear as anyone would have you believe.

 

True.

 

I'm only saying what the science implies. The reality differs from that a lot of times.

I also enjoy low reps over 5's and beyond. I'd take more sets of fewer reps over fewer sets of more reps any day of the week. I also feel technique is better with less reps per sets.

 

And about the last part, like I've said before I just enjoy reading about and discussing the theoretical parts of this hobby. I think you've said it before, but its funny how the more you study it, the more simple it all seems. When I started I though full body and SS was a fast way to get as unaesthetic as possible and that squatting 3x a week would leave me overtrained. Now I'm doing more than SS every session and I'm doing fine. 

post #39564 of 57259
@conceptionist, what's your opinion on not hitting macros exactly? You think it'll fuck you up in the long term?

So far on this cut there have been a couple of days where I'm +/- a few grams of one of the three macros. I don't really sweat it, figuring over the course of a week it evens out.
Edited by MarkI - 2/9/14 at 2:59pm
post #39565 of 57259
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkI View Post

@conceptionist, what's your opinion on not hitting macros exactly? You think it'll fuck you up in the long term?

So far on this cut there have been a couple of days where I'm +/- a few grams of one of the three macros. I don't really sweat it, figuring over the course of a week it evens out.

its largely unimportant. +-10 will def not make much difference. You should however consider that it does add calories. Going 10+ on fat and 10+ on carbs is another 150 cals for the day. But going - 5 on the fat while going 10+ on the carbs, netting a +-0 difference on the total cals won't make any difference whatsoever. Also keep in mind that you actually don't know your daily  calorie expenditure and that it also various between days. What you believe is a 500 deficit every day might be a 600 deficit one day and a 300 the next.

 

The only time I can think it becomes crucial, is in the very last phase of contest prep for a professional bodybuilder. They sometimes go so low on the fat (like 25g a day) in order to maximize carb and proteinintake for their calorie intake that dropping fat any further can put them over the edge, with worsened hormones as a result. 

 

Going over by 100 calories a day for you is not more of a problem that you theoretically you to cut just a tiny bit longer.

post #39566 of 57259
post #39567 of 57259
Put together 4 pre-packaged meals of 400 calories (250 cal chicken breast, 150 cal quinoa) as well as 2 500-calorie tupperwares of shredded chicken breasts (braised in negligible-calorie sauce) for the gf.

She's started cutting and already looks good. Hnng.
post #39568 of 57259
Quote:
Originally Posted by conceptionist View Post

its largely unimportant. +-10 will def not make much difference. You should however consider that it does add calories. Going 10+ on fat and 10+ on carbs is another 150 cals for the day. But going - 5 on the fat while going 10+ on the carbs, netting a +-0 difference on the total cals won't make any difference whatsoever. Also keep in mind that you actually don't know your daily  calorie expenditure and that it also various between days. What you believe is a 500 deficit every day might be a 600 deficit one day and a 300 the next.

The only time I can think it becomes crucial, is in the very last phase of contest prep for a professional bodybuilder. They sometimes go so low on the fat (like 25g a day) in order to maximize carb and proteinintake for their calorie intake that dropping fat any further can put them over the edge, with worsened hormones as a result. 

Going over by 100 calories a day for you is not more of a problem that you theoretically you to cut just a tiny bit longer.

Exactly the kind of answer I was hoping for, thanks.
post #39569 of 57259
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraphicNovelty View Post

Put together 4 pre-packaged meals of 400 calories (250 cal chicken breast, 150 cal quinoa) as well as 2 500-calorie tupperwares of shredded chicken breasts (braised in negligible-calorie sauce) for the gf.

She's started cutting and already looks good. Hnng.

You know we gon need before/after pics bruh bruh foo.gif
post #39570 of 57259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldsnap View Post

These some big boys. I feel like such a bitch with my 1,000lb total
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldsnap View Post

Nice pull Mark!

My deadlift is bleh right now. Thinking about finally switching to over under instead of double overhand. Stalling around 360, can't seem to get quality reps in over 315.


Are you squatting mid 400s or has your bench jumped into the 300s?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Random health and exercise thoughts