- This topic has 3 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
Question for ya…I've been doing Shockwave Protocol for a about two weeks and it seems to be going OK (too soon to say much about it) but I'm wondering what will give me the best results, Shockwave Protocol or Heavy Duty? My goal is hypertrophy, to gain as much lean muscle mass as I can. And from looking at the Heavy Duty program it looks a lot like the more traditional bodybuilding 4 day split I'm used too. I also train alone so no one can help me with negatives.Any thoughts on Shockwave Protocol vs. Heavy Duty?
Question for ya...I've been doing Shockwave Protocol for a about two weeks and it seems to be going OK (too soon to say much about it) but I'm wondering what will give me the best results, Shockwave Protocol or Heavy Duty? My goal is hypertrophy, to gain as much lean muscle mass as I can. And from looking at the Heavy Duty program it looks a lot like the more traditional bodybuilding 4 day split I'm used too. Based on Kiefer's blog post on it, the ShockWave-HD (Heavy Duty) will be superior for building Hypertrophy per its design. As he stated for the ShockWave 1.4, while it is surprising him in the amount of muscle people are building on it, is is not ideal for gaining. As far as the 'base' ShockWave, folks use it primarily for cutting on CNS, although some carry it through to CBL-SA with decent results. I also train alone so no one can help me with negatives. When I switch over to CBL-SA (giving CNS a couple of more tweaks first to see where I can get with it) I will switch over to the SW-HD version from SW 1.4. I, too, train alone and plan on using 'Negative-Accentuated' reps vs. pure negatives. Got the idea from an eBook from IronMan Magazine publications last year when I was experimenting before stumbling onto Kiefer's work. Do a quick, small % strip of weight then reps are 1 second on the concentric/positive and at least 6 seconds on the eccentric/negative. Got a friend to give me a hand one day during a time when I usually can't train just to do a compare and they came pretty close. Got a good deep aching burn taking it to shaking, nearly total exhaustion of pure negatives, but the weight was light enough not to kill myself. Not 100% equivalent, but I think it will suffice within a matter of degrees given the overall construct of the protocol. Just an idea. Any thoughts on Shockwave Protocol vs. Heavy Duty?
See, now I thought Shockwave Protocol was for building muscle (ie the “Jacked” protocol) and the epamphlet says: “Keep in mind that this Shockwave builds muscle and is not optimal for strength gains, although I have to be honest, I might have screwed up a little on this one because people report great size gains but also surprising strength gains, breaking through barriers they’ve fought with for years.” But there is his Heavy Duty training layout. Does one come before the other? Oh god, starting…to get…confused…
You're correct in what you're stating (obviously so, because you've quoted verbatim from the eBook for SW1.4 ;)). Despite this, it appears that after further thought, Kiefer decided a bit higher volume with some other twists would be ideal for big hypertrophic gains when paired with CBL. Here is the blog post:http://www.dangerouslyhardcore.com/1226/heavy-duty-cbl/#more-1226In the article, he states that he used elements of SW1.4 that he synthesized into the HD version, acknowledging that the eccentric loading, while not suited on its own for CBL and its magical GLUT translocation, is still a powerful tool for building mass and thus incorporated it into his HD version whereby he created the necessary high degree of balance between the concentric and eccentric to get the most bang for the buck when looking to maximize mass gains, strength and power.In essence, it seems more apt to get you bigger faster due to working on all elements of hypertrophic stimulation.
Roger that. Thanks, Marty.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.