+- Integrative Bodybuilding (http://drscottstevenson.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fortitude Training - The Forum (http://drscottstevenson.com/forum/forum-53.html)
+--- Forum: Fortitude Training™ - Program Info, Basics, Testimonals (http://drscottstevenson.com/forum/forum-54.html)
+--- Thread: FT Questions.... (/thread-244.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
RE: FT Questions.... - Scott Stevenson - 11-03-2018
(11-03-2018, 12:51 AM)d2r2ddd Wrote: TQ Doc!
YW!
-S
RE: FT Questions.... - zmt - 11-27-2018
Scott
Altamir with his new idea made me think and
I would like to ask about the core of FT
1. why you have build FT the way it is
separate days for loading, for MR and for pump - speaking of course about the same bodypart
not mixing thing every day
e.g. one session: Tier 3 for back - 1 set of loading, 1 set of MR, 1-2 sets pump ?
2. MR took place of RP DC Style - we know - only one failure point - but do you think it would be a good idea to implement (from time to time - autoregulation) for some exercises/bodyparts also DC style RPes ?
RE: FT Questions.... - Altamir - 11-27-2018
(11-27-2018, 07:06 PM)zmt Wrote: Scott
Altamir with his new idea made me think and
Let me supply some context here, not sure if it will help or not. I'm pretty sure Scott does not closely follow the log section, so he probably does not have any idea what you are referring too.
(I'll try and make this brief)
Basically I've twice ran JP's High Frequency Progressive Overload program, I enjoyed the split, enjoyed some components of it, and grew very well on it. To counter point, it's an absolute meat grinder of a program, I've toned it down from it's original writing, and it still pretty much absolutely trashes me.
As an experiment/compromise/fun I basically worked up a hybrid program mashing elements of FT (pump sets, muscle rounds, volume tier systems, and MR and Loading days) with JP's program (push/quad - ham/pull split, pre-fatigue legs, and RP and drop sets in the later tiers). In an attempt to sort of take two completely separate elements I've enjoyed and see if I can make a happy marriage between the two. I've been talking about it and sharing it with those interested in my log. That's all
I fully understand it's not FT, nor do I think it could replace it. Just some fun.
RE: FT Questions.... - Sermolupi - 11-27-2018
Interesting that you’ve run JP’s program, Altamir. I thought it was damn near impossible, actually, if you genuinely took all the sets to failure, as he advises. I was a bit disappointed by that ebook if I’m honest.
But - while I’m obviously not Scott - to address the question of why FT is set up the way it is, at least as I understand it, its a way of bringing together all the different means of achieving hypertrophy (high frequency, mechanical loading, metabolic stress, stretching, a progressive overload element and exercise variation) in a way that is manageable and not too hard on the joints or CNS.
Specifically, if you bring all set types together on 1 day then you remove the daily undulating periodisation element
RE: FT Questions.... - Altamir - 11-27-2018
(11-27-2018, 10:31 PM)Sermolupi Wrote: Interesting that you’ve run JP’s program, Altamir. I thought it was damn near impossible, actually, if you genuinely took all the sets to failure, as he advises. I was a bit disappointed by that ebook if I’m honest.
But - while I’m obviously not Scott - to address the question of why FT is set up the way it is, at least as I understand it, its a way of bringing together all the different means of achieving hypertrophy (high frequency, mechanical loading, metabolic stress, stretching, a progressive overload element and exercise variation) in a way that is manageable and not too hard on the joints or CNS.
Specifically, if you bring all set types together on 1 day then you remove the daily undulating periodisation element
I am in full agreement and was disappointed in it as well. I had to modify it, as it was written. Training sessions would have been 2½+ hours long and I would have been a corpse. Even then I was in the gym a lot longer than a typical FT session, and still found them outrageously grueling. I took lots and lots and lots of naps.
RE: FT Questions.... - Scott Stevenson - 11-28-2018
(11-27-2018, 07:06 PM)zmt Wrote: Scott
Altamir with his new idea made me think and
I would like to ask about the core of FT
1. why you have build FT the way it is
separate days for loading, for MR and for pump - speaking of course about the same bodypart
not mixing thing every day
e.g. one session: Tier 3 for back - 1 set of loading, 1 set of MR, 1-2 sets pump ?
Sermolupi addressed on aspect I considered, in that you'd be combining different hypertrophic stimuli and thus not truly using a DUP approach. I had some concern that there might be some interference effect that could occur here (and dug around looking for data without finding any).
I'd love to see someone do a study comparing DUP approaches where there is a:
High Load one day, low load the other.
High load preceding low load (both days)
Low load preceding high load (all workouts).
[Of course, then one could also consider training high then low some days and reversing it on other days... )
We're far from that in the research now, as there needs to be more research simply examining the effects of DUP in and of itself.
------
Really, though, there were a few mostly practical reasons I didn't combine set types
• Mindset and Psychology: It's a different mindset doing the different Set Types in FT, and I was aware that one has to prepare oneself psychologically for each of them differently to some degree.
Also, if, let's say, every day involved a heavy loading set, for every muscle group, this could burdensome psychologically.
• Practicality / Programming: Time can be a factor. If doing different set types for each muscle group, this would generally mean different exercises and more difficulty in securing machines and setting up. Some exercises (e.g., Barbell back squats) lend themselves to loading sets, but not MR's or Pump sets, so doing "back off" sets in the form of Pump sets (to save time) wouldn't really be an option.
• Overall volume and exercise selection in the context of training frequency: I knew there would be folks for whom a low volume was plenty for an exercise (Tier I), so on those days, doing just 1 loading set and a MR (or a Pump set) might have been too much, whereas doing just a MR, or just a pump set, or just loading sets (with isolation sets in there for the sake of targeting muscle groups, pre-fatiguing, etc.) made more sense.
• Simplicity: Looking across Tiers, It would have made for a hodgepodge of combinations of Set Types comparing larger with smaller muscle groups. I could have worked it out, I'm sure, but I have the strong sense it would have created confusion and forced people to constantly refer back to the Overview sheets to keep things straight. I also wanted people to be able to move between Tiers easily or, possibly, use different tiers for upper vs. Lower body. Doing things in this more simplistic way makes that easier. If there were some blend of Different set types that varied across both Tiers and muscle groups, this would have complicated things a good bit. ("KISS.")
Quote:2. MR took place of RP DC Style - we know - only one failure point - but do you think it would be a good idea to implement (from time to time - autoregulation) for some exercises/bodyparts also DC style RPes ?
For sure - I think people do REALLY well with RP sets. Frankly, some exercises (where starting and stopping is a bit of a PITA) lend themselves better to RP than MR cluster sets. Variety of training is important and the extent to which the multiple failure points of an RP set impacts someone varies, too. DC style RP sets also can be done in different rep ranges (11-15 could be used one day and 25-30 another), so there's an advantage in that, too. This is not standard DC methodology per se, but someone could use a DC RP set starting off in the 11-15 RP range and slowly, over time, allow those reps to creep up to a rep total closer to 30, for instance. (This is the same idea that could be used with picking a load that caused failure in the 4th set of an MR and sticking with it until one can get 4+ reps in the 6th set before failure.).
So, yes, RP sets are definitely a phenomenal tool. I've got no problem with someone using those if it suits them - none whatsoever. (I'd only be a "FT Nazi" if someone is doing so and not clarifying that, as people can become confused easily when the fidelity of information is compromised. Just yesterday, someone posted a "Fortitude Training Muscle Round" that was *4* sets of *6* reps using a *7* breath rest interval, which he'd seen on a "meme" somewhere about a year ago... LOL.
)-S
RE: FT Questions.... - zmt - 11-28-2018
Altamir and Sermolupi
thank you guys for bringing the big picture to Scott
Scott - as usual brilliant answer
1. I had my own suspicions and you prove me right
but I was curious that maybe there were also some scientific data to contradict (seems you had this idea as well - I had some concern that there might be some interference effect that could occur here) mixing things together - looks we are still in research territory with this
I am crossing fingers for Altamir and his experiment since for me it will take some extra dedication and mind power
2. I am glad you are not excluding RP - DC style because at the end of some workouts - especially with biceps and triceps - I am using them (done for more then a year DC classic split before finding out and falling in love with FT
- and also like you mentioned mixing rep ranges ) seems there there is a lot of ones experimentation within FT
thank you all !
RE: FT Questions.... - Scott Stevenson - 11-29-2018
(11-28-2018, 07:28 PM)zmt Wrote: Altamir and Sermolupi
thank you guys for bringing the big picture to Scott
Scott - as usual brilliant answer
1. I had my own suspicions and you prove me right
but I was curious that maybe there were also some scientific data to contradict (seems you had this idea as well - I had some concern that there might be some interference effect that could occur here) mixing things together - looks we are still in research territory with this
There was a training system called "Holistic Training" that included "pyramids" so to speak of sets ranging from about 5-8 to I think 15-20 reps (With an intermediate set in between). This is something that an old training partner of Lyle McDonald's used many moons ago.
Quote:I am crossing fingers for Altamir and his experiment since for me it will take some extra dedication and mind power
2. I am glad you are not excluding RP - DC style because at the end of some workouts - especially with biceps and triceps - I am using them (done for more then a year DC classic split before finding out and falling in love with FT
seems there there is a lot of ones experimentation within FT
thank you all !
I'm definitely for what works, and of course, the CNS taxation with arm training to failure isn't nearly as severe as when training larger muscle groups, so there's lesser worry there.
-S
RE: FT Questions.... - zmt - 11-29-2018
got it
thank you !
but
next question
MUSCLE MINDS, EPISODE 46
~65 min.
trash logbook to reset form and once again start training given bodypart instead just moving weights from A to B ...
I am guilty of later ...
frankly said I have never got a great muscle-mind connection ... now with bigger weights I feel I need to let go and start from the scratch ...
I know Jordan Peters some time ago also did this - if he needed this - I need it even more
Could you point me a good starting point (% from my current personal max - PM) to start working again - 70% of PM ??
RE: FT Questions.... - Altamir - 11-29-2018
My personal opinion. Take your training max and set it aside for a time.
Some of the best training I get at times is either when I am on vacation or traveling for work. Mostly because I'm using new machines and have really no idea what PRs are. My focus then more often than not shifts from trying to hit PRs and back to quality of reps. Because I don't know what weight I'm using, I generally warm up more, and do a better job of purely focusing on quality of reps. And where I land is where I land.
I'm all for progressive overload. I believe in it extremely strongly. but if you are going to reset form, tempo, etc. Honestly your previous PRs are almost somewhat meaningless, as it's completely different standards and situation. I'd honestly just approach each lift like you had never done it before. Focus on pure quality reps, warm up, hit a working set that feels GREAT. And then try to go back to it later and beat that, while keeping form and mindset the same.
As far as developing a good mind muscle connection, there is A LOT out there (and on this board about it). I would only add that you should keep searching for lifts or variations of lifts (especially on muscle groups you struggle with) that you can get a good mind muscle connection too. For example, for chest, I have found on a lot of machines, taking a slightly neutral/reverse grip actually engages my chest A LOT more than most. It sort of goes against common logic as most would tell you that would focus more on triceps. For triceps, My BEST long head lift is actually a reverse grip long handle pushdown. Most would tell you this would work the medial head the best, but for me it makes my long head feel like it's going to snap, and the first time I did this lift with any sort of intensity, the swelling in the long head of my tricep was so bad I actually pinched a nerve and my forearm went slightly numb for about 4-6 hours. More or less, keep looking, searching, trying new things and keep focusing on it. It's a skill and it will improve.