Weight Training Philosophy

[Thremp]

Blarg made a comment in the jump rope thread that got me to thinking. Why do we recommend certain activities for people? Perhaps due to our inherent protocols etc. I think many of us come with an inherent slant in the way we train. (Such as how Smiley thinks Crossfit is awesome, I think its somewhat ghey.)

Sharing where we picked up most of the information we now have would probably benefit us all.


I started doing most of my reading etc on T-nation back in the older days of its existence (when it was still "dangerously hardcore" and posted somewhat interesting steroid articles on a regular basis). Almost all the lifting I do/advise on is geared toward body composition for the non-competitor. Mostly with a powerlifting slant. Also due to some ballin (maybe unballin) I don't do any calf work and actually try to avoid calf work which creates an interesting problem as that I want my calves not to overpower my physique, but also want them strong enough to have a nice triple extension etc. I'm still not real sure how to handle this.

Likes:
Big 3
O-lifts
GPP

Dislikes:
Cardio
Combining cardio and weights
Metcon
Mike Mentzer

[theblackkeys]

I think it's good to bring this up, and I'm glad you made the post. I was actually going to make a similar post, because I noticed a few of you arguing about what's right and whatnot. I know some advice is more correct than others, but both sides don't recognize in their arguments that they have different philosophies and goals in weight training.

A lot of it has to do with each person's goals. Some want purely physique, some want functional strength, some want a little of both, etc. A bodybuilder wants to get big and ripped, but there's also the side effects like increased strength. A "strengthlifter" (powerlifting/olympic lifting/strongman) has one goal, to become stronger or perform better. They usually get bigger in the process. Your goals overlap a lot, because you are lifting heavy things, albeit in different ways.

--------------------------

I think cardiovascular exercise is important, but jogging, biking, and elliptical exercises are second-best to sports.

I'd compare it to lifting with machines vs. free weights. Free weights work many muscles at the same time such as stabilizer muscles, and require balance and body control. So does the lateral movement that is involved in sports such as basketball and soccer. Another benefit of these two sports is that they mimic high intensity interval training. A lot of full on sprints followed by some rest, and repeat.

I've noticed a big difference in my performance in hockey when I was also playing a lot of soccer. I was able to recover quicker between shifts, stay out there longer, my strides were more explosive and I was much more agile.

I like the big compound lifts, because they allow you to add more weight to the bar. I also don't need to do a million different exercises. Being completely wrecked after doing 4 work sets is cool. I'd like to learn olympic lifts, but we all know that's never gonna happen at 24 hr fitness.

[StaticShock]

I agree with your post with the exception of this line:

[ QUOTE ]

I think cardiovascular exercise is important, but jogging, biking, and elliptical exercises are second-best to sports

[/ QUOTE ]

The only sport that *may* get you in better cardiovascular shape than running or biking is soccer. Otherwise, if you run or bike with any intensity it really is a superior cardiovascular workout.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]

The only sport that *may* get you in better cardiovascular shape than running or biking is soccer. Otherwise, if you run or bike with any intensity it really is a superior cardiovascular workout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rugby FTW, probably racquet ball too.

Anyway, regarding philosophy - some of it has to do with the idea that "efficiency is king". I think Thremp and a few other people are from the bodybuilding school where the goal is to do exercises that maximize return. There is a certain way to workout that will give you the great body transformation for the amount of time you put in, and that workout is pretty much heavy weight training with proper nutrition, rest, etc. However, that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other perfectly good ways to get in shape. They might take more time and effort, but if they're more fun for the person doing them, they might be a better choice.

For example, you can get in great shape doing just bodyweight lifts (pushups, pullups, sprinting, etc.). It's probably not the most efficient way which makes it "wrong" in some sense, but if it's fun for you and you want to do it, then great. If you want to do a "Marine style" workout that combines fast bodyweight lifts with cardio - again it's surely not efficient in the sense that you're wasting some effort, but if you do it, fine.

[anklebreaker]

Good post.

Like tbk and cb said, it's important to factor in goals and personal tastes into the analysis.

Here's an excerpt of a pm I sent:

Something that I feel is overlooked in these gym/fitness discussions, is the consideration of different goals while making or analyzing a lifting plan/diet/excercise regimine.

So my point is that there are different ends that require different diets, different lifts, and differing emphasis on hypertrophy, innervation, (and cardiac output.) Maybe there should be a thread with these different goals and the subsequent appraoch (training, nutrition, recovery), and this can serve as an efficient starting point, while reducing noise.

Example goals:

> Weight gain w/o emphasis on only muscle gain
> Weight gain w/ minimal fat gain
> Stregth/power building
> Weight-loss w/o minimizing muscle loss
> Weight-loss (fat loss w/ minimal muscle loss)
> Beach muscles only (retarded)
> Sports-specific training

[Thremp]

anklebreaker,

I don't really like those goals as much cause many of them have huge overlap with one another. I think my personal view is more of like a complicated Venn diagram with some circles overlapping and some not.

But yeah... I do agree with the majority of it. Some of us may consistently offer different advice than each other because of fundamental preferences which may or may not be better or worse, but will slightly alter what someone is doing.

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your post with the exception of this line:

[ QUOTE ]

I think cardiovascular exercise is important, but jogging, biking, and elliptical exercises are second-best to sports

[/ QUOTE ]

The only sport that *may* get you in better cardiovascular shape than running or biking is soccer. Otherwise, if you run or bike with any intensity it really is a superior cardiovascular workout.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I'm basically trying to say is that footwork is important in sports. Running and cycling don't teach you coordination as well as sports like bball and soccer. Both soccer and running/cycling get you into peak cardio shape.

[TxRedMan]

hardcore cycling will blow away soccer on a cardiovascular level anyday/all day.

you just can't compare cardiovacular shape of the worlds top cyclers to the worlds top soccer players.

also, boxing/wrestling are often not thought of as cardiovascular oriented sports, but they are.

basketball is a great cardio sport, too.

but seriously, take a look at the resting heart rates of some well known cyclists. it's insane.

[StaticShock]

[ QUOTE ]

What I'm basically trying to say is that footwork is important in sports. Running and cycling don't teach you coordination as well as sports like bball and soccer. Both soccer and running/cycling get you into peak cardio shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree 100%. Running/cycling also can't get beyond certain point for sport specific conditioning. You can do all the HIIT you want, but it won't completely prepare you conditioning wise for something like an MMA bout. Let the training fit the sport.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]

but seriously, take a look at the resting heart rates of some well known cyclists. it's insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that has more to do with how hard they train than with the inherent superiority of cycling as a cardiovascular exercise mechanism.

Pro cyclists are in full training cycle almost 8 months out of the year, and during that time they bike hard about 6 hours a day, and spend the rest of the time resting and refueling to be able to bike more. No "traditional" sports athletes even come close, in fact it makes them look like a bunch of whiny lazy bums.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]



I'm pretty sure that has more to do with how hard they train than with the inherent superiority of cycling as a cardiovascular exercise mechanism.

Pro cyclists are in full training cycle almost 8 months out of the year, and during that time they bike hard about 6 hours a day, and spend the rest of the time resting and refueling to be able to bike more. No "traditional" sports athletes even come close, in fact it makes them look like a bunch of whiny lazy bums.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because in cycling you CAN train 6hrs a day.

As an amateur cyclist, I put in 20+ hrs of training during endurance phases. My resting heart rate was in the low 40's, and I wasn't even all that good.

When I ran, at the most I could do was 50 miles a week, which is less than 10 hrs a week.

With that said, it's much easier to get on a bike and NOT get a good workout. But as soon as you are running (not jogging), you are getting a much more intense aerobic workout.