Lest readers think that Steve's characterizations of my answers to his points are correct descriptions of my training, here are my corrections to his comments.

1. 70 to 80% 1-RM training. Citing the literature showing that hypertrophy occurs with this training method does not imply that I endorse it or that it is how I train. It is simply a response to the request to show that gains can be made with this protocol. I think it leads to over training and understresses systems. And it is time consuming and inefficient.

2. I did not suggest how much volume a competitive sprinter should or might use. A lot of their training is skill development and that does add to their volume, as it should because running efficiency is important.

3. Because I do not use athletes as a model for training does not imply that the training I advocate would not work for such an athlete. In fact, sprint training has increasingly moved in the high intensity direction with more bursts and over and under-speed (load pulling) training. Things I have advocated for some time.

I never take a matter of fact or logic personally; it is a bit harder to deal with a harsh tone in an argument. But, it is the human character for people to become attached to their beliefs and to bash, as you say, evidence or arguments that challenge them.

Ego? I guess you have to have some to put ideas out there. I can take the heat, because I do not take ideas or facts personally. Every scientist must eventually face the fact that their pet theory or hypothesis may be shot down by the harsh facts of reality.

Anyway, I think Steve's comments have made a contribution by stimulating a useful discussion.

Well Art, I share at least one of your reflectings whole heartedly about the subject of debate - its a waste of time - and, any attempt at an exchange of intelligent ideas/commentary within the confines of the internet is futile. This will be my last post on the subject but I can't help to reiterate to an earlier comment of mine; you are an egotistical sumbitch :) But I like you- really.

1. Art: There are hundreds of articles showing hypertrophy in ST and FT fibers from 3 sets of 10 reps at from 70 to 80% of RM. The burn is lactic acid, a known correlate of GH release. So is an increasing body core temperature.

I assure you the above approach will not work for long - nor does any single approach. As I am sure you will agree, we are all very adaptive - and the more advanced you are, the more adaptive you are. If my bench is 400 and I work at 280 in the manner you prescribe, at my current development, I assure you of three things; first, i'll be real good at moving 280; i'll get stale after 3 weeks and will not longer get better at moving 280 and third, my one rep max won't budge - it may even drop. For an elite athlete, many types of work are necessary -too numerous to mention here.

2. Eccentrics are a large part of my training and they preferentially recruit FT fibers.

We agree there. Absorbing force is under rated in my opinion.

3. Art: I am well aware of how sprinters train. Nothing I said is inconsistent with their training. In fact I said nothing about their training. I just set some guidelines for staying safe in the gym and still getting good results

Well, I know of more than a few routines of some top sprinters and they live on higher volume than you you seem to suggest. The confines of the internet do not allow a full discussion of the inherent need for greater training volume, load, density, etc. as your performance increases. But briefly, the volume, load, density, etc. that might have made someone perform at level "4" will not bring them to level "5".

4. Art: But you put it in a destructive way by attacking my knowledge and attributing superior knowledge on your part as to how sprinters and strength athletes train.

I apologize - there are limitations to words - and my writing style - it wasn't my intent. But I still think your writings lack context and an example of that was the reactions you received from t-mag. Given the simple fact that, due to our amazing adaptability, almost any training program will "work" - this debate is going nowhere. But some of the training ideas you have posted here are contrary to what the elite actually do. Not saying that is good or bad - its indifferent - its just an observation - and my opinion that your manner of training is "for the average person".

5. Art: Again you attribute a lack of perspective on my part for no reason but to assume some kind of superior knowledge on your part.

NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE KIND! YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND INTELLIGENCE ARE BEYOND REPROACH. However, I think, at least in the case of the t-mag interview, you didn't know your audience. And by the way, I "found" you before t-mag and I'm still a fan.

6. I would never use a "competitive, world class" athlete as a model for my life or my training. I have other goals, though I am highly competitive and even dominant in the sport I choose to be competitive in (softball). I want to move through life with a peace and powerful grace and to be able to do anything I want to do effortlessly. Without spending my life in the gym.

Well, in your own way, you made my point; you do not use the world class athlete as a model. Well put and I agree and it's been my point all along. For those of us interested in maximum performance, your ideas have limited application. Finally we are on the same page! The average trainee will become much better for your ideas; but they do have their limitations.

Oh I guess this should end now; but believe me, its a rare day I train to "failure"; its fair to say that most training is done at submaximal weight.

I don't purport to know more than you Sir! Maybe it is I that doesn't understand the audience of this site; I just wished you had injected some context into your t-mag interview; I hated to see you bashed for what I feel are some really sounds ideas on training and nutrition - but as sound as they are, they fall short for certain goals.

I think Arthur Jones' comment "You don't learn how to train a racehorse by asking a racehorse" is applicable here. Elite athletes very often don't have a clue as to how to train because for many of them anything works. And many of their coaches are scared to try anything different because they are afraid they will screw up if they don't follow the herd. Art's post on football players being fat was very true and illustrates this. I've always wondered why the coaches want fat linemen, it seems that speed and quickness would be preferable to mass. But everyone is convinced you can't play offensive line now at less than 300 pounds even though there are very few people that size with a decently low bodyfat percentage. Of course, given the herd mentality of most coaches the first team that wins some championships with smaller, quicker linemen will start a new trend.

David

I got nothing from Steve's comments either. If you aren't open to new ideas, I'm not sure why you are posting. If you believe you have all the answers, go post your own blog. Your point on elite athletes is not sound either - some are naturally gifted regardless of the way they train. Michael Johnson ran a 20.41 200m in first collegiate meet - he was already faster than 99% of the population before he started any "elite" training program.

Steve:

Your comment shows you are involved in training and that you have some useful ideas to share, but your tone is over the top. There is no need to make the attributions you make to make your points. Keep commenting, but please work on the tone: make it a submaximal effort.

On your first "point""

Steve: How "going for the burn" with submaximal weights hits the f/t fibers is beyond me; Art, or anyone, can you please provide some references to this dubious claim?

Art: There are hundreds of articles showing hypertrophy in ST and FT fibers from 3 sets of 10 reps at from 70 to 80% of RM. The burn is lactic acid, a known correlate of GH release. So is an increasing body core temperature.

There are other technologies that I use and I don't think you know yet what they are. The ascending threshold sets go right up the fiber hierarchy and do involve heavy weights. Eccentrics are a large part of my training and they preferentially recruit FT fibers. The dolphin model is one of large muscle mass recruitment in complex movements with large bursts of energy expenditure. And there are others, such as my alactic sets. So, it is too soon for you to make your assertions about my training.

Steve: And, as to the comment about "headroom" between training and staying injury free I hope we all have the proper perspective here; This type of "training" is great for the senior crowd or weekend warrior. You cannot name one world class strength or track athlete that trains in this manner.

Art: You have my idea upside down. A very powerful strength athlete would have enormous metabolic head room. Head room is the distance between your basal metabolic rate and your most powerful move. That is what power athletes are all about.

Steve: Art, for all your admiration of the holy f/t fiber (the holy grail to me also); you seem to ignore the empirical evidence of how, for instance, world class track athletes train and optimally develop those f/t fibers.

Art: I am well aware of how sprinters train. Nothing I said is inconsistent with their training. In fact I said nothing about their training. I just set some guidelines for staying safe in the gym and still getting good results.

Steve: This bit of criticism is not destructive; but somewhere I'd like to see the disclaimer that your way of training never built a competitive athlete; in terms of longevity, I certainly applaud your theories - but as a strength athlete - if I trained your way my performance would nose dive and I'm sure the same would hold true for the sprinters that we both admire.

Art: But you put it in a destructive way by attacking my knowledge and attributing superior knowledge on your part as to how sprinters and strength athletes train.

Steve: Keep up the good work - I like it, am happy you are continuing your blog, but please put some perspective on it because, for instance, I think that is where your t-mag interview went astray with readers not familiar with your context."

Art: Again you attribute a lack of perspective on my part for no reason but to assume some kind of superior knowledge on your part.

I would never use a "competitive, world class" athlete as a model for my life or my training. I have other goals, though I am highly competitive and even dominant in the sport I choose to be competitive in (softball). I want to move through life with a peace and powerful grace and to be able to do anything I want to do effortlessly. Without spending my life in the gym.

I could spend a lot of time dissecting this sort of comment, but I do have other things to do. That is why I no longer look carefully at them.

So, just to summarize here is what I object to: the comment asserts I made a dubious claim about FT fiber, it asserts that I am ignorant of how sprinters train, it has my metabolic headroom point upside down, and it purports to understand my method of training fully from the few guidelines I put up to train and avoid injury. It asserts that no athlete could train this way (whatever that is) and be competitive. It also asserts that I suffer from a lack of perspective. That is quite a lot to conclude.

It also puts forth a "competitive" athlete as some kind of model and uses "world class" as some kind of honorific title for an athlete he deems worthy of emulation.

Readers will decide for themselves.

Steve:
Well taken comments but since when do elite athlete activities and training ever equal safe training, especially in the long term. Elite athletes quite often have many physical problems later in life, especially strenght ahtletes. As for going for the burn with submax weights, try doing the pyramid that Art suggests (increse weight and decrease reps while increasing explosiveness/power) you can still push/pull quite a bit of weight, although probably not what you are looking for as a strength guy.It is probably best suited for more average people, but I could be wrong about this. By the way, Ed Coan says he never goes to failure and uses submaximal weights (his submax weights are still huge!!) for the majority of his workouts since he progresses to a max over a 16 week period or so. You do not have to train to failure to be strong-and submaximal weights should be used in more training sessions than not (even for strength). Again failure training is much better done on machines-safer at least.

How "going for the burn" with submaximal weights hits the f/t fibers is beyond me; Art, or anyone, can you please provide some references to this dubious claim?

And, as to the comment about "headroom" between training and staying injury free I hope we all have the proper perspective here; This type of "training" is great for the senior crowd or weekend warrior. You cannot name one world class strength or track athlete that trains in this manner.

Art, for all your admiration of the holy f/t fiber (the holy grail to me also); you seem to ignore the empirical evidence of how, for instance, world class track athletes train and optimally develop those f/t fibers.

This bit of criticism is not destructive; but somewhere I'd like to see the disclaimer that your way of training never built a competitive athlete; in terms of longevity, I certainly applaud your theories - but as a strength athlete - if I trained your way my performance would nose dive and I'm sure the same would hold true for the sprinters that we both admire.

Keep up the good work - I like it, am happy you are continuing your blog, but please put some perspective on it because, for instance, I think that is where your t-mag interview went astray with readers not familiar with your context.

Art,

I am just beginning to realize, alas without the benefit of actual experiential De Vany lessons, just how different your approach to training is despite having read your blog since the feburary. The amount of headroom you advocate we leave to stay injury-free is certainly much higher and more complex than what most active people believe they need to have. In attempting to get the right balance between high-intensity and yet injury-free, you are beginning to fill my know-how gap and given us useful thinking tools to mark our progress. Kudos.

It seems most of the people out there view intensity (when talking about a gym workout) in terms of how hard they work, ie. going to failure with heavy weight which is the traditional HIT approach. Mentzer used to preach that the last few reps in a set to failure was the safest, which is untrue. For example, if you are using a heavy weight to do dumbell presses to failure, on the last few reps you are more likely to loosen up form to get those reps. It is so very easy to injure stabilizer muscles like the rotator cuff this way. It is an injury waiting to happen!! You are much better off doing what Art does, never going to failure, going for the burn and then stopping. If you like to do a HIT style set, it is better to use a machine, which guides the weight and takes stress off the rotator cuff. Although doing this exclusively risks building a strong deltoid with stabilizer muscles that cannot keep up-another injury waiting to happen. Free weights and going to failure do not mix very well!! A mix of free weights used the De Vany way and, If desired, machines for failure sets works better. Anyway, thanks, Art, for the great blog-I check it several times a day and enjoy your comments.

Wow, what a great post! I think the part about low volume and not straining are so important. I used to do Mentzer-style workouts to failure and had to lay on the couch for days (and never improved much in the long run). The model of the dolphin seemed to hit home with me. It is such a contrast to either the high-volume or high-intensity bodybuilding camps. Keep up the great work.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: