high intensity, all out workouts

[Proteinboy]

check out this quote from kubik's book, Dinosaur Training:

"To do so(build strength and muscle), you must work the muscles with a weight heavy enough to make the last
rep of any set almost impossible to do even when you are pushing or pulling as hard as you
can.
You do NOT need to do lots of sets and reps.
What you DO need to do, however, is push your muscles EXTREMELY HARD - all the way
up to the point where you could work no harder. This will trigger the little “alarm bell” that
tells the body to take steps to become a bit bigger and stronger so that the next time you go to
the gym it won’t be quite as hard. This is what I call the “break down, build back up” system
of muscle building,"

i can agree with this for some workouts, but isnt going that hard every workout detrimental in the big scheme of things? the CNS could ware down quite fast, right? maybe for an intermediate, 1 workout per week could be taken that hard, but doesnt proper periodization call for a rotation of intensities per workout?
ie: M=very heavy W=light F=moderate
therefore the body is given adequate stimulus, fatigue is managed, and supercompensation can occur the next week as fatigue dissipates.

its like every time i read a new book, some expert contradicts what another expert says. i know i have to be very skeptical and use my own brain ...because so many "experts" are completely in disagreement!

many advocate "leaving a couple in the tank"
pavel advocates staying away from failure
kubik advocates going all out every abbreviated workout
Rippetoe advocates rotating intensities per workout for the intermediate(high-med,low)

my training exp tells me that when i go all out every workout, i stagnate QUICKLY and start feeling burnt out. i stayed at the relatively same poundages when i used to go all out every workout. that doesnt work for me.

so im swaying way towards rippetoe's mindset.

thoughts?:action:

 

[malkore]

I think the intensity always needs to be present.
but to me intensity has nothing to do with 'going til failure'.

You can 'move a weight' or you can 'explosively contract the muscles to move the weight'. the former does not trigger much muscle growth, while the latter DEFINITELY does.

For example when I lay down to do bench press, the thing I think of to mentally prepare is "OMG this huge rock is on my chest and it needs to be OFF, NOW!"

A lot of people just think "i need to move this bar up n' down", and they will not be hitting it with the intensity they should.

whether i go til failure (or past failure with assistance) isn't part if this equation.

 

[evolutionX]

many advocate "leaving a couple in the tank"
pavel advocates staying away from failure
kubik advocates going all out every abbreviated workout
Rippetoe advocates rotating intensities per workout for the intermediate(high-med,low)

my training exp tells me that when i go all out every workout, i stagnate QUICKLY and start feeling burnt out. i stayed at the relatively same poundages when i used to go all out every workout. that doesnt work for me.

so im swaying way towards rippetoe's mindset.

thoughts?:action:

Kubik doesn't advocate failure. He's saying go close, closer than a lot of other trainers would advocate. So, he's not advocating true failure but hitting right at that 1RM nearly every workout. And while it's a slight bit more intensity than some of the other trainers, they all advocate high intensity as the main stay of strength. Where they differ is how close to failure to go and then it's not much...it's 1 rep to failure vs 2-3 reps to failure. They're all advocating in the 90% plus range of your 1RM. So, it's not really all that different.

I think you're reading too much and getting confused by the slight differences in opinion rather than the commonalities.

 

[Proteinboy]

i didnt say kubik recommends going to failure

however, i dont believe they are "slight differences in opinion".

the way the authors approach the subject is completely different, sometimes completely contradictory.

however, i understand what you are saying evolutionx. there are commonalities. im just trying to get more opinions on which one is best.

 

[dswithers]

I think they all have their place in your training routine at different times, just like different rep ranges. I found at this point in my training lower rep ranges (3-8) and stopping at least a couple of reps before failure is best for heavy compound movements and higher rep ranges (8-12) and going to failure works better for isolation movements in general. Of course, I also like to do the slow progression schemes (like 5/3/1 and Bill Star's 5x5), so there you are not going to failure for 4 or 5 weeks and then as you increase the weights you eventually reach a place where you are going to failure a lot and need to reset and start over after a couple of weeks of near or past failure.

 

[nails]

Every session sould be really ****ing hard/difficult/intense...However it should not be the same stress again and again.
So you periodise rep ranges/set types of exercises etc depending on what you are trying to acheive

simple

 

[evolutionX]

Every session sould be really ****ing hard/difficult/intense...However it should not be the same stress again and again.
So you periodise rep ranges/set types of exercises etc depending on what you are trying to acheive

simple

He understands that. He's trying to organize how certain authors are different from each other and yet the same.