- This topic has 2 voices and 3 replies.
-
Posts
-
I had once posted about “how heavy is heavy” and I'm kind of revisiting that topic again. In order to successfully use CBL we need to have intense muscular contraction. When i think heavy I think in the 1-5 rep range. I mean psycho killer psyche up style sets. Some fear, some doubt and kicking ass under the bar. But the more I look at things like CBL Heavy Duty (which i still don't understand whats HD about it, it's not the split advocated by Mentzer, it's not SSTF and it's not the exercise selection) it's a sound and good progression but the volume and rep range is real high. Bunch of work in the 3×10 range, multiple angles getting worked. I'm still a beginner to strength training but I know if I can work squats and rdls in my 85-95% Intensity range for triples and doubles. If i'm doing 10 rep sets i'm working at 60-75% intensity. So ultimately if I'm hitting failure or damn close to it does it really matter what exercise or rep range I'm in? Will super isolation routines to bring up the 4th fiber on the right on the sternocleidomastoid that hit failure on the 18th rep still be worthwhile. I imagine the more isolation work in a program, the less you would be able to backload . Likewise, would the high the rep range also mean to lighten your back load. Not looking for any kind of crazy debate- just bouncing some ideas out there- I've been reading a bunch about Vince Gironda (who had his own stupid simple version of CBL back in the day! Low carb it 3 days, evening of the 4th carb up on pasta or something and repeat) He promotes a ton of isolation work. Been reading the "celebrity" trainers like Gunnar Peterson and Steve Zim. Typically they advocate real high rep ranges (Zim in particular goes from 6-20 depending on body type) Mind you- personally strength is important to me, and something I actively train for- however some people just want to look better and could give @#$%-all if they are strong or not, and for those (and maybe myself down the line) this might be an interesting thread.
I am having trouble sorting though that actual questions you have and all the other mumbo jumbo, which i almost dozed off upon reading….Specifically, what questions you have related to Training / nutrition? Try and make it a little easier to read for us so we can help.Big_R
Apologies- i recall writing that post in some weird rant mode. Anyway the gist of my question is this- CBL is said not to work great with something like p90x or other “metcon” style workouts because they don't induce heavy muscular contraction; however when i look at the sample programs like Sub Zero, CBL Heavy Duty and ShockWave they seem volume focused rather than intensity focused. Then I thought about it some more and came to the conclusion they are still more demanding on muscular tissue than a strength/conditioning bastardization like P90X and that for both extensive volume based training and intensity based training and everything in between will be fine for cbl. So overall- I re-assessed my goals and tailored my strength and conditioning program to be in line with those goals and then tailored my nutrition around that. So far since that particular post i've dropped 4 pounds, an inch off my waist and gained in my major lifts. So far so good. Thanks for the reply.
Nice job… those are good results to yield in a relatively short period. Shockwave is designed in effort to stimulate your muscle as much as possible in one session, without over-taxing the CNS. If you follow it correctly and train explosively on ELECT you will be accomplishing good volume within a short period of time, which is a great way to add density without overtraining... so it's also about recovery.cheers!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.