EXPERIMENTAL TRAINING
Christian Temple____________
My initiation into the often frustrating, yet undeniably addictive world of weight training began in 1976, at the age of 17. I was just beginning my senior year of high school and, due to the popularity of Arnold at the time, I was determined to build as magnificent a physique as he. Of course, I had little knowledge of the role genetics play in the development of the top physiques, and was completely ignorant of the use of drugs as an aid to muscle building. After all, the biggest and glossiest magazines of the day proclaimed that all that was needed to achieve a championship physique was dedication, a wholesome diet, and of course, subscriptions to the aforementioned periodicals so as to keep up on the newest techniques and ?secrets? of the champions that were, and still are, published each month.
Fortunately, I had other outside interests when I began training, so I did not have time to pursue routines like the champs recommended. I cut back on the volume considerably, yet I still performed much too much work. At the outset I did three whole-body workouts a week (as recommended in the instructional booklet that accompanied my first weight set) of about ten exercises for 3 sets of 10 each, and made some marginal progress. It wasn?t long before the mags really got my attention and I had converted over to a program of four-day-a-week workouts and three to four exercises per body part, each for 2 or 3 sets. Amazingly, I still was able to progress, so doubt blessed with the resiliency of youth.
ARNOLD?S INFLUENCE
My main source of training info at this time, in addition to the number one magazine, was the book Education of a Bodybuilder by Arnold. I followed, or attempted to follow, the recommended programs for intermediates in the second half of the book. I did spend some very limited time on six-day-a-week routines, but after some experimentation, they did not last. Four-day-a-week routines were the maximum I could handle, and I trusted Arnold. After all, who could possibly know more about weight training than the King of all bodybuilders?
It is important to note that when I started training at the age of 17 I was an untrained 180 pounds, at 5? 11?, and involved in normal teen athletics. Though I am by no means a genetic superior, I obviously had a good degree of genetic predisposition for strength and size gains. I can?t say I have ever identified with the 120-pound beanpole neophyte, though I certainly had, and still have, sympathy for this individual.
MIKE MENTZER?S INFLUENCE
I continued on my Arnold program for a year or more, developing some muscularity but not much size, when suddenly a new star burst on the horizon. Not only did this man possess a ruggedly massive physique, but claimed to reach this state by training three days a week (unheard of for a champion) and doing no more than 5 sets a body part. His name was Mike Mentzer.
This was about 1978 and Mentzer was all over the mags of the day. Of course his ?Heavy-Duty? courses were marketed monthly, and I sent for each one of them. They proposed the almost exclusive use of the ?pre-fatigue? system and explained it so logically that it just had to be the best way to progress. After all, Big Mike used the system, and he was a sterling example of the healthy bodybuilding lifestyle, wasn?t he?
I began the ?Heavy-Duty? routines as soon as the little booklets came in the mail. While still working out four days a week, my routines now consisted of 5 sets per body part, three body parts a workout. I gritted my teeth, and, come hell of high water, I rarely missed a workout. The initial results were an almost immediate increase in size and strength, I think up to about 200 pounds bodyweight by age 20, in 1979. The fact that I could barely drag myself out of bed in the morning was attributed to going to college full-time days and working part-time nights, and I never associated the exhaustion with my pre-exhaust workouts.
I continued using the pre-exhaust method for quite a long time. I never cycled poundages, trained to complete positive failure and beyond, and made progress. I guess I trained this way until about 1983 or ?84. How I didn?t wind up in hospital with systemic fatigue is a miracle, and I guess a tribute to my inherited structure. Looking back now, years later, many symptoms of overtraining and fatigue were present, though largely ignored. I suffered from insomnia, rapid heart rate, increased viral infections and colds, and chronic headaches. Still, I plodded on, sure that the pre-fatigue method was the only way to train.
Since the mags contained mostly articles by the ?champions?, praising the value of twenty-sets-per-body-part routines, and since the only ?sane? voice at the time was Mentzer, proposing ?limited? routines, his was the only voice I heard. Until about 1984.
ELLINGTON DARDEN?S INFLUENCE
At this time I purchased an Ellington Darden book on advanced Nautilus training. In it, Ray Mentzer was heralded as performing routines of only 7-8 exercises, for one set each, per workout. This was deemed as truly incredible, as compared to the routines of other champs. These routines were performed only twice a week. Naturally, I began such a program myself, and almost immediately began to see gains anew. It was about this time that I began to consider the benefits of doing less.
Now, while today in 1993 I have a lot of problems with the books and principles of El Darden, I must give him due credit, along of course with Arthur Jones, for initiating me into the world of truly limited training. I made excellent progress on the two-day-a-week training routine, performing eight or nine exercises a routine, yet still heavily concentrating on pre-exhaustion.
Today, it is easy for me to see that I was regularly overtraining on the pre-exhaustion technique, but at the time, the high intensity was producing ?good? results (measured at the time in muscularity and muscle soreness rather than actual strength increases). Even though I increased the weights used in an exercise by maybe 10 pounds every few months, I was always sore from my workouts the next day, so I must have been getting stronger, right? (In all fairness, I was fairly strong, performing dumbbell flyes with 75 pounds for 6 reps followed immediately by bench presses of 180 pounds for 6 reps. The problem was, I would remain at these weights for very long periods of time).
THE PRIORITY
To a large degree, I had neglected the foremost rule of effective weight training - this that of progression. It remained this way until about 1986 (27 years old). I did manage to increase my weight and muscular size to about 220 pounds or so, so apparently it is possible to increase size without the same increase in strength gains.
At about this time, I fortunately became aware of articles by people like Ken Leistner, Bradley Steiner and Stuart McRobert. These authors were not concerning themselves with catchy technique names, or the system of the week, but were pushing forth the concept of short, abbreviated training with the main focus on progression, progression, progression. All else in a routine was secondary as long as weight progression and true strength gains were the main focus of the routine.
I had always understood the importance of the big basic exercises, and had incorporated them into my routines. The problem was, I was killing myself on the isolation movement of the pre-exhaust cycle, and was therefore limiting my progress on the big basic exercises like benches, rows and squats. One of the hardest things I ever did was remove myself from the pre-exhaust principles and begin concentrating on just performing the big exercises. My routine at this time consisted of 2 sets each of the bench, row, hack squat, curl and press behind neck, performed two times a week, and I made the best strength gains of my life. I increased each lift considerably, and worked my bodyweight up to about 235 pounds by the end of 1986.
Of course - through age, experience and maturation - I began to get a better grasp on the concepts of anabolic steroids and hype. I must admit to a good deal of naivet? when it comes to drug use, yet I grew to appreciate that 99% of what was written at the time, even so-called abbreviated training, was geared for the drug-enhanced, genetically gifted trainee. My distaste for bodybuilding grew and I became more interested in acquiring true size and strength, not just showy yet non-functional muscles. I also gained enough confidence to trust in my own judgement, and perform experiments in training upon myself. I intended to become an ?expert? on my own body.
LESS IS MORE
One concept always remained in my mind, and filtered through all the hokum I read early on. That was the concept, created by Arthur Jones, of the bigger and stronger you get, the less you must train. I remember reading in a Nautilus book the recommendation that beginners perform 12 sets, three times a week, intermediates should perform 10 sets, two times a week, and advanced trainees should perform 8 sets two times a week. While this set-up is of course too simplistic an approach, the basic philosophy is sound. Bigger and stronger trainees exert more intensity with every rep of every set performed, and make greater inroads into their recovery system. Therefore, advanced trainees must perform harder work less often.
So, beginning in about 1987 (28 years old) I began to experiment with a wide range of days-of-the-week training, number of sets, and number of reps per set. Between 80 and 90% of the time I spent on single set training. Since I now believed ?set-enhancing? techniques to be more harmful than good. I only went to positive failure. I performed 8 sets a workout, twice a week, and made good progress. I cut the sets back to 7, 6 and 5 and made even better progress.
Periodically, I would vary my set and rep ranges, performing 3x3 or 5x5 per exercise. Instead of performing single sets of six or seven exercises a workout, I would perform only one or two exercises, 3 to 6 sets each, and each exercise only once a week instead of the ?required? twice. I discovered that the total number of sets in a workout was more restrictive on my recovery system than the total number of sets per body part. I experimented constantly and all results led to one conclusion - the less I trained, the bigger and stronger I got. From 1987-1991 I progressed to 250 pounds, with a corresponding increase in functional strength. While I periodically performed 3, 5 or 10 sets per exercise, and one-exercise workouts, I invariably returned to single-set routines of three to six movements.
I have spent time performing one exercise only, three days a week; one exercise every two weeks; and several weeks at a time of only training one target area, say back for example. And all these methods have delivered results. The bottom line, regardless of which approach I have taken, is to undertrain, rather than overtrain, and keep total volume to a bare minimum.
LESS IS BEST
The greater parts of 1991 and 1992 were spent further attempting to cut back in the training volume and frequency. Each successive decrease has led to a corresponding increase in size and strength. For a long time, two workouts a week were the norm, consisting of one set each of three different movements, for about 5 reps each. This is as close to a ?perfect? system as I had found, up to that point. The next year, 1993, involved further reductions in training, and has led to a present bodyweight of 270 (38? waist, 54? chest), and new maximums in single attempts lifted on a variety of exercises.
I believe my present routine to be near the ultimate in abbreviated, effective training. Yet, is it suitable for all trainees of all inherited potentials? Should we cut to the quick right from the beginner?s level, and perform the ultimate limited schedules available? Or, do beginners need more work due to their limited strength in the beginning and then begin to decrease their volume and frequency as their ability to generate intensity increases? I don?t know. A study would have to be conducted of a statistically significant population at the beginner?s level in a controlled environment. And this is not very practical.
All I can say is, every decrease in volume has, for me, yielded the next level of strength increase. And it is very important that we are talking size and strength increases here, not muscularity and bodybuilding type gains. While I am large and muscular, I do not possess the bodybuilder?s type of physique of outrageous vascularity and cuts. And no one who doesn?t use steroids will ever have that type of development. I much prefer looking like a power lifter or football player than I do a bodybuilder. Nowadays, I would consider it an insult to be lumped into that group of categorical liars and drug abusers (pre-steroid era bodybuilders excepted).
Abbreviated training is the only way to train, though there are various forms and concepts of keeping routines brief. Individual interpretation is always needed and accepted. I can only speak from my own experience and, as far as I am concerned, less is always best. I am currently down to training with only single-rep sets, and the results are marvellous. And I am currently considering experimenting with even less exercises as I get nearer and nearer to my inherited potential.
PART II
S-I-N-G-L-E-S
CHRISTIAN TEMPLE
________________
It is a rarity in life when one can say they have come full circle and realized that the answer they have been seeking for so long has been under their nose all the time. If we were discussing religion, one could say that I am ?Born Again?.
JOHN McKEAN?S INFLUENCE
The Great Realization I have come to believe in so thoroughly is by no means a discovery of my own, though in my own mind I have hypothesized the effects of such training on and off for many years. No, the light that opened my eyes was the marvellous article by John McKean in the March 1993 issue of HG (#23). I will not attempt to step on John?s toes or reinterpret his excellent piece. I suggest strongly that those of you who missed this simple yet masterful article order a back issue immediately and acquaint yourselves with this piece. John also had excellent articles in issues #25 and #27 of HG.
The March 1993 article dealt with the IAWA, the concept of all-round training, and the performance of 18 different and often-times esoteric exercises spread over three workouts a week. Actually, most any movements is acceptable to perform in all-round lifting as long as it is not a standard power lifting movement. While that alone piqued my interest, the real guts of the article was single-rep training, and that is what got my training juices going.
The concept is so simple, so practical, and so ideal, yet it remained virtually invisible to the large majority of strength trainees, myself included. And even though the system as John McKean described it is designed for all-rounders, it is certainly suitable to the more standard lifts of the bench, squat and deadlift.
OTHER METHODS OF TRAINING
Let me state right off the bat that I am not saying that single-rep training is the only correct way to train and that all previous methods are null and void and a terrible waste of time (although many popular programs are). What I am saying is that it appears that single-rep training may be the fastest way to increase size and strength, and the hard gainer would be wise to attempt this type of program (provided all safety measures are properly taken).
This does not render all previous abbreviated training advice as inoperable. Yet, I cannot from this moment on, recommend any training style other than single-rep training. I believe that strongly in this method of training. I can remember, however, how I used to believe (before reading John?s article, setting aside the common anti-singles dogma, and putting the method to the test on myself) that single-rep training was not a good way to train.
THE RATIONALE
The only productive reps performed in a set - strength producing wise - are the last couple of reps. In fact, the last single is really the only one that builds strength, and a corresponding increase in muscle size. All the previous reps only serve as a warmup. I know that many, many authors recommend 15, 20 or more reps for some big exercises like the squat, and the terrific effects for many people from working out in this way are undeniable.
The problem as I see it with performing too many reps is the increased chance of overtraining, in addition to just plain tiring out the trainee. Also, for a trainee like myself who, either due to many years of low-rep training (6-10 reps), or pure genetics, or some combination of both, is a terrible ?repper?, the chances of performing high reps with a substantial weight is unreachable. When I attempt to increase repetitions, it might take me years to progress from 10 reps to 20.
Aside from being unable to do high reps with large weights, the question has always haunted me as to why anyone would want to do them. I mean, if you want to see how many times you can lift a weight consecutively as a show of strength and endurance, that is fine. But if your main goal is to get as big and strong as possible, as quickly as possible, and lift as much weight as possible for one limit rep, then why concentrate all of your precious muscular effort on repetition training?
I think the problem lies in the mistaken belief that weight training can be the beginning and end all of physical training. Since time is limited, many trainees have tried to put all their eggs in one basket, so to speak, and accomplish all their training goals using one modality. Using high reps for metabolic conditioning, medium reps for muscle size, and low reps for strength gains has been a standard method of training for years. And it is wrong.
Weight training should be used for one purpose only - increasing muscular size and strength. To attempt to use it for any other purpose is almost futile. Sure, one can use very light weights for thousands of reps, but the effect will not be stimulation of muscular growth. On the contrary, a nice aerobic workout can be achieved this way. (By the way, a large key to successful single-rep training is the incorporation of hundreds of reps with low resistance, not as a muscle-building tool but rather as an aerobic conditioner and muscle warmup. More on this later). Aerobic training should be incorporated into a strength program to take care of the other physical concerns, like metabolic training and warming up.
The evidence has been around for a long time that single-rep limited training is the way to go for maximum gains in strength. We have known that when an individual decreases his training from 20 sets per workout to 10 sets, a corresponding increase in strength gains and recovery is forthcoming. Also, when reps per set are dropped from 10 to 5 (at least for me), the results are similar. Some people, myself included, have progressed marvellously on two-day-a-week programs of 3 sets total per workout, 5 reps per set. And competitive lifters have for years trained using a variation of the single-rep method, albeit preceded by unnecessary low weight sets and too many reps. We have not seen the forest for the trees. If 5 reps increase size and strength, then why not 4, 3, 2... Or 1? The bottom line is this: lift X pounds of weight one day once, and the next time lift X + 1 pounds once (using the same form) and you must get bigger and stronger.
I know it is extremely difficult to accept the concept of performing single-rep sets. All I can say is it works, regardless of what the ?experts? say. It is logical, practical and effective.
WARMING UP
Let?s get back to warming up. ?Chris?, you might say, ?all those reps done prior to failure are a necessary precaution to warm up the muscles and prevent injury?. While it is true that the musculature should be thoroughly warmed up prior to attempting limit poundage work, it is not true that the warmup has to be of a weight training modality. Remember, any lifting you do contributes significantly to the cumulative effect on the recovery system, even a few submaximal sets.
The type of warmup that should be used is 12-15 minutes of a full-body aerobic nature. This will warm up all the musculature of the body prior to attempting limit poundage lifts. This will also provide a needed aerobic benefit that is not always attained by strength trainees. John McKean recommends a ?heavyhands? type of warmup (see his article on warming up in HG #27), while I do 20 minutes of aerobic skiing on a machine. Immediately after the warmup, the strength workout is initiated so as not to let the muscles cool down.
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
Single-rep training is not without potential problems, so let?s discuss a few.
The first that comes to mind is that of safety. Any limit or near-limit poundages are being worked with, there is the potential for injury. Due to the aerobic warmup, injury to the musculature is virtually nonexistent (as long as your form is good and you don?t start off with your absolute best single lifts). The chance of injury due to muscular failure is possible, however. Movements should be chosen that are relatively safe to perform alone, especially for the home trainee. Movements where the weight can be dropped or pushed away from the body are best. This presents a problem for exercises like the bench press and squat. These two movements should never be performed for limit singles unless they are performed in a power rack, or with safety supports, or hanging chains or some other safety device that enables you to quickly and safely escape the bar. This point can?t be stressed enough.
Another point to consider is that of performing limit singles too often, and hance leading to overtraining. I think the style of putting routines together as described by John McKean precludes this from being a concern.
Previous strength routines that have incorporated maximum singles have, as a rule, included many warmup repetitions which contribute significantly to the effect on the recovery system. With the McKean singles style, only 3 reps are performed: 80%, 90% and 100% of that day?s maximum. Even though you are performing single reps for a maximum one-rep goal, the actual amount of reps at 100% max is minimal. That is, 2 of the 3 reps are submaximal, although of a high intensity nature, and often even the single rep we are calling 100% is actually less than a total effort (because you don?t start training on singles with your absolute best poundages).
In his article on singles in the July-August 1993 (#25) issue of HG, John McKean gave an example of starting a singles cycle with 80-85% of his all0-time best single as his starting 100% lift, and then added 5 pounds every week. Even if you feel you can do more than a single for each ?set? you do, you must only do one rep, otherwise you are likely to overtrain, even on this very limited schedule.
Another point of concern is the belief that very low-rep and heavy work does not contribute to muscular size. This has been the popular belief for a very long time, and I have a couple of theories on the subject.
Usually, those practitioners of low-rep work have been weightlifters and power lifters, not bodybuilders. Often, lifters become stronger without a corresponding increase in muscle size or bodyweight. I believe this phenomenon is due to the fact that a lifter in a weight class is striving to maintain his weight within that class via caloric restriction, and therefore appears that strength is gained while size is not. To some degree, this may be true, but in larger part, muscle size may be increasing while fat is decreasing, thereby maintaining similar measurements and weight. Also, ?lifters? are usually those who have a genetic predisposition to achieving strength gains over size gains, as compared to bodybuilders. Lifters also probably have a less frequency of drug use than bodybuilders, at least on the less-than-elite level. These are just theories, but now I will detail my own progress as an example.
A TWELVE-WEEK CYCLE
Here?s the procedure I used for singles training and the actual progression through a 12-week cycle. The training program makes most of the recommended routines in HG seem like marathon workouts.
In week one of the cycle, I began performing 9 exercises in total - 3 each on 3 non-consecutive days a week, i.e., Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The movements chosen were a combination of basic power and size movements along with some other lifts that I had not previously spent much time on. Each group of lifts was organized so as to train the legs, back and chest structures from a slightly different angle on each training day. The setup looked like this (and remember that a full-body aerobic warmup opened each session):
Monday
Squat
High Pull
Standing Press
Wednesday
Straddle lift
Bench Press
Bent-over row
Friday
Hack squat (using a barbell)
One-arm deadlift
Press behind neck
Each lift was performed for 3 reps and 3 reps only - 80%, 90% and 100% of my one-rep maximum. The actual weights started in week one as a one-rep maximum were actual limit singles for me, dependant on experience with a particular lift. (Bear in mind I was already familiar with low-rep work when I moved into singles - I didn?t feel I needed to ?break in? to singles training. You are likely to be different though). For instance, taking the bench press, my max single for week one was 405 pounds, which, since I have a considerable history of performing the bench press, I knew to be an actual max single. In the straddle lift, however, the week-one max was 310. This was derived at by simply adding weight to a 5-rep set until only one rep could be performed. I called this a max.
The first week?s 80%, 90% and 100% poundages looked like this:
Hack squat: 215, 240, 270
One-arm deadlift:135, 155, 170
Press behind neck: 150, 170, 190
Straddle lift: 245, 280, 310
Bench press: 325, 365, 405
Bent-over row: 215, 240, 265
Squat: 295, 330, 370
High pull: 160, 175, 190
Standing press: 175, 200, 220
Remember, each lift is done only once a week, for 2 submaximal singles, and then one maximal single. These lifts were continued for six weeks, at the end of which the following singles were performed:
Hack squat: 300 (11% of previous best)
One-arm deadlift:200 (a new lift, no previous best)
Press behind neck: 220 (115% of best)
Straddle lift: 340 (another new lift)
Bench press: 430 (106% of best)
Bent-over row: 295 (111% of best)
Squat: 400 (108% of best)
High pull: 220 (115% of best)
Standing press: 250 (114% of best)
Six weeks after starting a singles program - at 5? 11? and 260 pounds - I increased my one-rep max each workout by 5 pounds and also increased my bodyweight to 268 pounds. This was not a fat gain due to less activity. In fact, due to aerobic warmup, I lost body fat, as indicated by an inch decrease in my waist (from 38 to 37) and I increased my muscle mass noticeably, evidenced by the fact that my shirts were now too small and my trousers a little baggy. Quite an accomplishment for an advanced trainee of 33 years of age with 16 years of training.
At the end of six weeks, I reevaluated my program. Though I was nowhere near overtraining (my enthusiasm and recovery have never been better), there were certain lifts I felt I had peaked on. I felt it would be more productive to subtract these movements from the program and continue to make progress on the movements I felt I had the greatest potential for increased gains. (This was based totally on instinct and does not necessarily mean I would have been unable to make further progress on those other lifts). Week 6 through to 12 followed this program:
Monday
Straddle lift
Bent-over row
Wednesday
Bench Press
Curl*
Friday
One-arm deadlift
Standing Press
*The curl was introduced for three reasons - to introduce variety, to maintain two moves each workout, and simply to gain some size and strength in an ?untrained? area.
The rep scheme remained the same as in the first 6 weeks, but the weekly poundage progression was reduced relative to the first 6 weeks. At the end of 12 weeks, the results were single lifts as follows:
Straddle lift: 350 (113% of previous best from week #1)
One-arm deadlift: 225 (132% increase)
Bench Press: 450 (111% increase)
Standing Press: 265 (120% increase)
Bent-over row: 315 (119% increase)
Curl: 165 (110% increase)
At the end of 12 weeks, my bodyweight had edged up to 271 or 272, and there were still no signs of fatigue or overtraining.
Why was this method so effective for me? Some of the reasons were given earlier, yet I believe the main reason is a combination of three factors: maximum effort and maximum rest, no wasted effort, and - maybe most importantly - a long history of intense and brief training that has trained my musculature to react to brief bouts of intense effort, compensating with increases in size and strength. Whatever the true ?scientific? explanation, this method has worked for me. I can say with some certainty that it is the only way I will train from now on. Unless, of course, a briefer method comes along.
Is this progress due to favourable genetics? Absolutely, and others may not reap the same benefits. Yet I suspect that anyone of average potential will receive the best strength increases of their career. And anyone with above-average potential (like me) may see phenomenal success, particularly at the intermediate level.
Still not convinced? Well consider this. If a person who weighs 130 pounds and bench presses 80 for a single works out diligently and intelligently, and, over several years, increases his one-rep bench press to 350 pounds, do you think he will still weigh 130? More likely he will weigh 250. An exaggerated example, I know, yet I think it drives home the point.
What about beginners? They have always been steered clear of really hard work, especially anything as rugged as max singles. I really cannot comment on beginners and singles as neither I nor anyone else I know personally has used them in the beginner stage. I can say that John McKean put his young son on them from the very beginning of his training and he has progressed at a remarkable level. Maybe John can comment further on the applications to beginners.
I am very interested in how others react to a singles program. Anyone wanting advice, or to let me know of their progress, may write me at 210 N. Main Street, Franklinton, NC 27525, USA.
, commences par avoir une bonne hygiéne de vie et tout ira mieu déja( bien dormir, manger de le bonne bouffe...)
pas très crédible
J'ai meme posté en 2004 je crois tout un texte PRO SINGLEs de KUBIK, je l'ai d'ailleurs relu récemment.
