Im only doing one set...

[SNC]

It's OK, you do you and I'll do me.

You do realize that injuries are often the result of overtraining though, right?

Define overtraining, not DOMS or the like, but overtraining. That is one of those works that has been thrown around for a while now and used by those who don't really have a clear understanding of it. Overtraining is is at a different point for everyone, competitive lifters workout several times a day, every day with a couple days of rest thrown in. While I am sure I would come pretty close to killing myself at that level right now, given enough time I would be fine, and so would you. There is not a hard and fast rule when talking about overtraining, it's a sliding scale depending on your abilities.
Injury is a result of doing improper exercises either with weight or form, and unbalanced workout. One of the main ones are shoulder issues. There are so many people that complain about shoulder issues and pain when benching. Mos ot the time that pain is caused because the shoulder is in a position of impingement caused by an imbalance of push pull exercises. What happens is the chest starts to pull the shoulder forward because there is not enough muscle tension from the back, creating an out of position issue for the joint, and bam pain. Injuries caused by overtraining are just about at the bottom of the list, as most people give up long before an OT condition affects them.

tl;dr: Sore muscles are not overtrained muscles.

 

[SNC]

No one but a genetic anomaly or steroid user could handle 4 hours (2 full hours spent actually lifting) in the gym multiple days/week. Who the hell has time for that anyway?

And no, for your average human, getting more sleep/food/BCAAs are not going to make up that difference.

There are big genetic differences among even typical gym visitors.
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/genetics-and-strength-training-just-different/

What you are describing strikes me as anomalous and/or chemically assisted.

My group actually likes when people whisper that we must be meatheads, it's a badge of honor.
I read your link and on whole I agree with just about everything he said including:

It’s also worth noting that your “genetics” can improve over time. No, not the actual genes themselves, but epigenetic factors (things that influence which genes get turned on and off) tend to change for the better in response to exercise, and along with/in addition to epigenetic factors, gene expression patterns, systemic inflammatory state, and your body’s hormonal environment tend to change and improve in response to training as well. All of these things can help you respond better to training. I’m not going to blow smoke up your ass and say that these shifts will take you from zero to hero, but I know plenty of people whose results are barely noticeable over any short-to-moderate-length period of time, but who’ve still attained solid results over 5-10+ years by simply grinding away and making improvements little by little.

We all have it in us, we just need to use it. Just as we can alter our production of negative hormones (cortisol as mentioned in the thread earlier) by becoming comfortable with what it is that causes that production, the more we work the more the body adapts and overcomes. That's not to say that every person is able but there are a lot more that don't try just because they think they can't.

 

[PeterScott]

I read your link and on whole I agree with just about everything he said including:

We all have it in us, we just need to use it. Just as we can alter our production of negative hormones (cortisol as mentioned in the thread earlier) by becoming comfortable with what it is that causes that production, the more we work the more the body adapts and overcomes. That's not to say that every person is able but there are a lot more that don't try just because they think they can't.

Yeah, sure. 20 pages demonstrating that genetics is almost certainly a huge overriding factor, and you cherry pick the comment that is essentially an off hand exception, and claim reality is the opposite of 20 pages of evidence based argument.

I am over 50 years old now. I spent 25+ years grinding against being a prototypical ectomorph. I tried high volume, moderate volume, HIT, splits, full body workout etc.

You know what worked really well for me? Nothing.

You know what worked best. Moderate volume, 3 sets/exercise, Slightly higher rep ranges, full body workout 3/week. But best for me was gaining about 5lbs of muscle to show for years of consistent work in the gym.

Now, I just do Chins/Pushups/dumbbell squats and other dumbbell exercises at home, along with running/biking/hiking outdoors for fun/health/fitness. I end up with a about 3 session of resistance and aerobic exercise per week in the summer. Usually much less aerobic exercise in the winter.

I also think both you guys are getting too rapped up in Cortisol. The whole anti-cortisol mania is "Bro Science". Cortisol is not a bad hormone, it's a necessary hormone. Having higher cortisol after a workout is not an issue. Only chronically elevated or depleted cortisol is.

 

[SNC]

Yeah, sure. 20 pages demonstrating that genetics is almost certainly a huge overriding factor, and you cherry pick the comment that is essentially an off hand exception, and claim reality is the opposite of 20 pages of evidence based argument.

I am over 50 years old now. I spent 25+ years grinding against being a prototypical ectomorph. I tried high volume, moderate volume, HIT, splits, full body workout etc.

You know what worked really well for me? Nothing.

You know what worked best. Moderate volume, 3 sets/exercise, Slightly higher rep ranges, full body workout 3/week. But best for me was gaining about 5lbs of muscle to show for years of consistent work in the gym.

Now, I just do Chins/Pushups/dumbbell squats and other dumbbell exercises at home, along with running/biking/hiking outdoors for fun/health/fitness. I end up with a about 3 session of resistance and aerobic exercise per week in the summer. Usually much less aerobic exercise in the winter.

I also think both you guys are getting too rapped up in Cortisol. The whole anti-cortisol mania is "Bro Science". Cortisol is not a bad hormone, it's a necessary hormone. Having higher cortisol after a workout is not an issue. Only chronically elevated or depleted cortisol is.

So you're going to agree with everything except that. If you believe he's capable of one paragraph of BS then why believe the rest of it? I was disagreeing with him on cortisol being a bad thing, I only made reference to it because his workout is exactly what he was saying causes its production and in contradiction to his earlier statement that extended workouts produce it. I also made note that it's responsible for fat delivery to fuel the building process. I'm sorry it was such a hard road for you, props for sticking with it.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Define overtraining, not DOMS or the like, but overtraining. That is one of those works that has been thrown around for a while now and used by those who don't really have a clear understanding of it. Overtraining is is at a different point for everyone, competitive lifters workout several times a day, every day with a couple days of rest thrown in. While I am sure I would come pretty close to killing myself at that level right now, given enough time I would be fine, and so would you. There is not a hard and fast rule when talking about overtraining, it's a sliding scale depending on your abilities.
Injury is a result of doing improper exercises either with weight or form, and unbalanced workout. One of the main ones are shoulder issues. There are so many people that complain about shoulder issues and pain when benching. Mos ot the time that pain is caused because the shoulder is in a position of impingement caused by an imbalance of push pull exercises. What happens is the chest starts to pull the shoulder forward because there is not enough muscle tension from the back, creating an out of position issue for the joint, and bam pain. Injuries caused by overtraining are just about at the bottom of the list, as most people give up long before an OT condition affects them.

tl;dr: Sore muscles are not overtrained muscles.

Persistent muscle soreness is most definitely a sign that you are overtraining. DOMS is just something you get the first couple of weeks when you start working out or when you change something, if it's persistent you are overtraining and your body is telling you that it can't keep up.

Injuries can be caused by overtraining through working out more per instance than your body can recover from. It applies to muscle tears as well as joint and ligament problems. It is obvious to any thinking human being that if you break down more tissue (and you are breaking down tissue by working out) at a pace your body cannot recover from you will have these problems.

 

[PeterScott]

So you're going to agree with everything except that.

I agree with what was backed by studies, not offhand anecdotes.

I think you are guilty of "Survivorship Bias". You found something that works for outliers, like you (or your group that stuck around) and now feel qualified to give advice.

J.W is somewhat guilty of this as well, but not as much.

Your workouts would kill me, his rep range is too low to work for me.

https://criticalmas.com/2013/09/fitness-blogging-disclosures/
"So many fitness bloggers and professionals fail to understand survivorship bias. They model their advice around what they see working best for a handful of outliers with little regard to safety, recoverability or sustainability.

Those that get results stick around, those that don’t go away and are replaced with new clients. Over time, the trainer sees more and more successes, which they believe are in part a result of their expertise. The failures are hidden. The successes are now financially supporting the trainer. Those that can train more often and recover faster are the best customers.

I could go on and on, but I think this is root of many problems in fitness. Fitness advice is geared towards survivors, not towards reducing the failure rate. "

 

[SNC]

I agree with what was backed by studies, not offhand anecdotes.

I think you are guilty of "Survivorship Bias". You found something that works for outliers, like you (or your group that stuck around) and now feel qualified to give advice.

J.W is somewhat guilty of this as well, but not as much.

Your workouts would kill me, his rep range is too low to work for me.

https://criticalmas.com/2013/09/fitness-blogging-disclosures/
"So many fitness bloggers and professionals fail to understand survivorship bias. They model their advice around what they see working best for a handful of outliers with little regard to safety, recoverability or sustainability.

Those that get results stick around, those that don’t go away and are replaced with new clients. Over time, the trainer sees more and more successes, which they believe are in part a result of their expertise. The failures are hidden. The successes are now financially supporting the trainer. Those that can train more often and recover faster are the best customers.

I could go on and on, but I think this is root of many problems in fitness. Fitness advice is geared towards survivors, not towards reducing the failure rate. "

 

[purbeast0]

This thread has gone full blown stupid.

Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[SNC]

This thread has gone full blown stupid.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Survivorship Bias has me stumped.

 

[purbeast0]

Survivorship Bias has me stumped.

What got me was this...

Persistent muscle soreness is most definitely a sign that you are overtraining. DOMS is just something you get the first couple of weeks when you start working out or when you change something, if it's persistent you are overtraining and your body is telling you that it can't keep up.

There's just really no need to have discussions with people who think this is true.

This thread reminds me of fitness threads that used to be in OT before this sub forum was created.

 

[SNC]

What got me was this...


There's just really no need to have discussions with people who think this is true.

This thread reminds me of fitness threads that used to be in OT before this sub forum was created.

That's why I asked him for the definition of overtraining, I had a feeling he had no idea.
When he replied I knew there was no hope. I thought about correcting him so that others might have a better idea of what it is but this sub is not that well visited.
I should have given up a while ago but I really do believe that the large majority have no idea what they are capable of, and just need a little motivation to start the journey.
If I can do what I do at close to 50 someone in their 30s should have no problem.

 

[PeterScott]

Survivorship Bias has me stumped.

I am not sure why. It's a fairly straightforward concept once it is pointed out.

 

[SNC]

I am not sure why. It's a fairly straightforward concept once it is pointed out.

Because it's a defeatist attitude\concept that can be applied to every single aspect of life you want to discredit or minimize.
School has a great graduation rate so you should mimic them; yes but only if you look at the students that applied themselves.
College has a great placement record so you should mimic them, yes but only if you look at the students that applied themselves.
Sports coach has a ton of great players so you should mimic them, yes but only if you look at the those that applied themselves.
Diet planners with a great success rate so you should mimic them, yes but only if you look at the ones that applied themselves.

There's a pattern there if you can find it. I'm not saying that EVERYONE can be the Hulk or VanDam, but seriously, survivorship bias?
There is a show that took lazy fat people who thought that there was no way they could walk a mile let alone run a full marathon. After 6 months they could do exactly that. Now you can point to those that did not and fell off the show as proof of your 'Survivorship Bias' but what about those who ran till they puked, or thought they would die but continued? Why should a process or person be minimized because some people in a group are not willing to commit? One of my kids was about to give up lifting because he was small and at 14 could only bench 95 pounds. With just a few tweaks of his form and some additional supporting movements, he's now only 5 months later benching 155 and has his sights set on 225 for the next meet. Now had I just told him he was right and that because of his size he would never lift any real weight, he would have walked away defeated and helped to validate your Survivorship Bias mumbojumbo. But he dedicated himself to the process , asked questions, put in the work. Hes now working with the bigger kids and is looked at as a role model at 14! Yes there are those that either because of physical limits will not get stronger or bigger. I would argue that number is pretty small if you remove the mental blocks people put up for themselves. Like I have always told my kids, both my offspring and the ones that train at my gym, as soon as you say you can't, you're right.

 

[PeterScott]

There's a pattern there if you can find it. I'm not saying that EVERYONE can be the Hulk or VanDam, .

That is exactly the Vibe you give off. I spent 20+ years lifting and at peak only gained maybe 5 lbs of muscles, and we get genetically gifted (more often than not, steroid users) saying you didn't work hard enough, eat, sleep enough, or take the magic supplement (and pretend that supplement isn't steroids).

If there was a pattern, that worked for me, I would have found it. I have been likewise reading everything on training/nutrition for 30+ years. It is extremely unlikely you could suggest anything that I have not read at least 10 times by now.

 

[purbeast0]

If you think your "peak" is gaining 5lbs of muscle from your "normal" weight, then you're doing it completely wrong, let alone doing it over 20+ years.

 

[PeterScott]

If you think your "peak" is gaining 5lbs of muscle from your "normal" weight, then you're doing it completely wrong, let alone doing it over 20+ years.

You simply don't understand the range of human genetics.

 

[sze5003]

I've been lifting for about a year and im pretty skinny. I think I gained about 35lb since then, going by my weight. Still skinny frame but definitely can tell there is muscle. I used to do an hour or more 4x a week but now I do less and divide up my exercises. I could probably do a lot better if I had a gym buddy but that's not the case anymore.

 

[purbeast0]

You simply don't understand the range of human genetics.

And you're simply making up excuses for not knowing what you've been doing the past 20+ years.

 

[PeterScott]

And you're simply making up excuses for not knowing what you've been doing the past 20+ years.

Really, and what don't I know, font of all training wisdom?

 

[purbeast0]

Really, and what don't I know, font of all training wisdom?

That gaining 5lbs of muscle is nobody's "peak" amount of muscle they can gain from lifting weights, considering a "normal" human being with no genetic or odd medical conditions that would limit them.

 

[PeterScott]

That gaining 5lbs of muscle is nobody's "peak" amount of muscle they can gain from lifting weights, considering a "normal" human being with no genetic or odd medical conditions that would limit them.

Go look at the bell curve in any lifting study, these include coached sessions, with nutritional supplementation.

It's always a bell curve, with some making easy gains, most making small gains and some making ZERO gains. It isn't because they lacked nutrition, or didn't do the work. They have a genetic disadvantage.

Some people have a significant disadvantage when it comes to gaining muscle. My cousin and my brother both essentially have the same issue. My cousin was even more fanatically about working out, and not being skinny, he went into the Army eventually and is still essentially the skinniest guy I have ever seen in the army.

Some consider us "lucky" because we aren't fat when we are well into middle age, but I don't think any of us feels lucky.

 

[purbeast0]

Nothing you just said changes how wrong you are.

Your brother and cousin were I'm guessing working out with you, which is why they probably had no gains too.

It's okay if you are doing stuff wrong. Just learn from your 20+ year mistakes. I lifted "wrong" for like 3-4 years through college, wondering why I wasn't getting much stronger and bigger. When I realized what I was doing wrong, I started to see a lot more gains.

But I'm pretty much done with this thread as far as posting goes. I will keep coming back for the lulz though. Keep those up.

 

[SNC]

That is exactly the Vibe you give off. I spent 20+ years lifting and at peak only gained maybe 5 lbs of muscles, and we get genetically gifted (more often than not, steroid users) saying you didn't work hard enough, eat, sleep enough, or take the magic supplement (and pretend that supplement isn't steroids).

If there was a pattern, that worked for me, I would have found it. I have been likewise reading everything on training/nutrition for 30+ years. It is extremely unlikely you could suggest anything that I have not read at least 10 times by now.

Have you ever been diagnosed with a medical issue that is causing your lack of gains or had a personal trainer? If not why not? Why workout for 20 + years with basically zero gains and not seek out a reason? Steroids are not a cure all, you don't just inject them and wake up the next morning with muscles, there is a lot of work needed even with them and without building blocks that people without roids use to build muscle there will be no gains. But to say that some guy in a gym whom you don't know is recommending to you to get on the gear has my BS meter on full tilt! First if you are as skinny as you say you are, I doubt you have a Gold's membership or any of the other hard core gyms where gear is prevalent, and people on gear don't just walk up to people they don't know and recommend that shit, it puts them in a bad place dealing an illegal substance, it just does not work that way. They might have been recommending actual supplements like protein shakes or bars, creatine, BCAAs, glutamine and the like.

 

[PeterScott]

Got it. Scientific Studies are wrong.

Gym rats are the true source of knowledge.

 

[SNC]

Got it. Scientific Studies are wrong.

Gym rats are the true source of knowledge.

Unless you were part of that study, I'd be more inclined to agree with those that have actually done and help those that said they can't do, than a study that may or may not have a single thing to do with me.

So is that a no on the Dr. or trainer?