Dwa systemy treningu porównane w wywiadzie z
Casey Buttem:
Muscle and Strength: You mentioned that you carry several other beliefs that are somewhat controversial. I want to ask you about them. Let's talk about full body routines. Why do you believe they are best for naturals? And why have they gone the way of the dinosaur over the last 30-40 years? For the most part on lifting forums, I only see HIT practitioners and 5x5 programs that slant towards being "full body"...
Casey Butt: Year-round, elaborate split routines, in the typical bodybuilding sense, were essentially "born" as a consequence of several occurrences in the early 1960s and have become popular because bodybuilders copied the routines of their drug-using heroes. In the 1950s and early '60s Weider was promoting higher volume, more isolation laden, training routines as more modern and sophisticated than the "old fashioned" lower volume routines that were the staple of the York training courses - and in certain regards it was true. And the magazines naturally focused on bodybuilding champions' pre-contest training, which was higher in volume than the rest of the training year. Several top bodybuilders did, in fact, train on split routines in the 1950s and earlier, but this was typically reserved for sharpening up in the weeks leading up to contests, with full-body routines used for building up during the rest of the year.
By the early 1960s steroids entered the picture as primarily a pre-contest training aid (following the Weightlifters' practice of ramping up steroid use as contests drew near) and this allowed for yet further increases in training volume. Around this point split routines became the norm rather than the exception. Again, pre-contest training was the focus of the magazines as readers wanted to know what Mr. So-and-so did to win the title. What got lost however, was the fact that most of these lifters followed full-body routines to build up during the off-season and when they were not dosing Nilevar or Dianabol.
As bodybuilders realized that steroids could be used to very effectively bulk up in the "off-season" their use spilled over to the entire training year and split routines were adopted as the off-season template followed by top bodybuilders. It's natural that aspiring trainees copied their heroes' routines and practices, but they were generally kept in the dark about steroid use as the major magazines purposefully hid it and promoted aspects of bodybuilding more profitable to them (training courses such as isometrics in the power rack and the supplements of the day - wheat germ oil, desiccated liver, protein powders and pills, etc.). That practice has been part and parcel of the training media since the introduction of steroids, and if anything is even more rampant today.
Steroids change a trainee's tolerance and response to exercise in a number of ways. Most importantly, steroids are an artificial source of testosterone and mimic it's anabolic/androgenic properties. For that reason, steroid users do not have to be concerned with maintaining and manipulating their own natural testosterone levels through training and diet. A natural trainee's progress, however, is inexorably linked to his hormonal response to training. Training of too low a systemic magnitude and there is no response, too much and the body can't keep up and overtraining results.
On the scientific front, several studies over the decades have shown that protein synthesis and hormonal responses to training return to baseline within 36-48 hours of even intense, high-volume weight training. At the same time, routines consisting of compound exercises have been shown to be vastly superior to those consisting predominantly of isolation exercises and machines, with regards to lean body mass and strength gains. Volume wise, 2-4 sets in the 8-12 rep range have been shown to be the most efficient count for hypertrophy and growth hormone release, whereas 4-6 sets of 4-6 reps have been shown to be near optimal for strength building and testosterone release. On top of that are the findings that intense exercise involving larger total muscle masses, such as performing heavy Squats and Deadlifts, results in the most dramatic responses of the body with regards to testosterone and growth hormone levels. The blood cortisol:testosterone ratio begins to climb into unfavorable territory after 45-60 mins of intense training as well.
Put together, the body of credible scientific literature over the past 60+ years points directly to relatively brief (an hour or so) full-body routines as being the superior form of exercise for hypertrophy and strength building purposes, particularly in the absence of exogeneous anabolic steroids. For a bodybuilder trying to build up, there's no advantage to performing many isolation exercises and no need to do more than 2-6 sets of any exercise. Each session should include movements that tax the largest amount of muscle mass as possible so as to elevate testosterone and growth hormone levels. The most logical routine design that fits this prescription best is the full-body routine, centered around basic free-weight exercises.
I find it ironic that the majority of modern science supports not what is considered modern by most, but what is considered old-fashioned and was exactly what Reg Park, Clancy Ross, John Grimek, Steve Reeves, George Eiferman, Jack Delinger, etc, all recommended before the introduction of steroids into bodybuilding. Park and Ross were even particularly careful to caution trainees that split routines are okay before contests to lean out, but not best for building up in the off-season ...and building up is what most natural bodybuilders spend the majority of their time aspiring to do.
I've been deliberately careful to specify here that this is all within the context of building muscle mass. There are times when split routines are an equally or more viable training option, particularly pre-contest when lagging muscle heads begin to become apparent at low body fat levels and must be addressed (though for trainees who never intend to dip much below 10% body fat or so they may never even be aware of such deficiencies). There are also certain groups of trainees who naturally respond well to split routines, even in the off-season. Those are typically people who have naturally high testosterone levels, robust joint structures, and can deliver significant enough training loads to the muscles in a single bout to justify longer breaks between training sessions. Highly experienced trainees who are close to their genetic potentials can also benefit from a split routine that allows them to focus more work on lagging body parts - though this can also usually be done on an advanced full-body routine.
The majority of drug-free trainees, however, who are looking to build more overall body muscle mass, strength, a visually impressive physique, and don't have particularly robust joints, would be far better off focusing on just getting stronger on the basic free-weight movements to the practical exclusion of every other thought - and full-body routines are the near ideal vehicle for that, most of the time. That's how Park did it, he didn't have any glaring weaknesses, and as I mentioned in response to the previous question, no drug-tested bodybuilder yet has surpassed that level of development.
Posty połączone: 09 Mar, 2012, 13:23:11
Jakby ktoś chciał przeczytać "streszczenie" Leangains:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:IcqMSO292LIJ:doubleyourgains.com/musclebuildingmastermind/The_Leangains_Approach_Final.pdf+lean+gains+pdf&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg1EX1ZMkpPtWZdrdfWV6XYNCaD8lPXaB7c9YRLc_OW1BQFwfhATAj6G1Wpee7l5GnNeQivfTrD0KD8bRDlRUK7XbVRNQsjTmKgHIhrJ46XXocb3Kw1PIDaMak-h-sNJJXVSzhK&sig=AHIEtbT1ARfzx8oQJvkL2Y-_6GehyWFoLw&pli=1
