Response Part II to Eric
He is not going to get hytropephy in a 7-10 rep range when his diet is in a deficit to lose weight. You have to be in a surplus to get hytropephy.
Yea, you'll see those words come out of my mouth around this forum 5+ times per day.
I don't think anyone here was suggesting he's going to realize appreciable muscles mass gains while dieting.
However, you'd be surprised what a properly structured strength training program can do in terms of body recomposition with the obese. It's a different playing field than your average competitor's.
3. Now as far as the ball. I am not saying to use the ball forever.
I wasn't saying you were.
Use it as a stage. For general fitness or athletic training it is highly recomended. You will see a great improvement in strength because it trains the core to activate in the exercise which in turn burns more calories.
Honestly dude, I can't even comment on this. I mean come on.... stop saying he is going to increase strength by using a modality of exercise that dictates the usage of lighter weight than stable-surface training.
Now, if you simply said more musculature would come into play, I'd be satisfied with the comment.
And having more muscle mass at play isn't necessarily the be-all-end-all either. Getting stronger locally and neurally should be primary, IMO, and that will involved the focus of attention on adding weight to the bar.
The ball = magic to today's gurus and I highly disagree. It has it's use, place and time.... but I simply didn't see it's utility in the context of the OP's situation and your recommendation. I still don't.
I have trained some power lifters by taking them away from what they do and putting them into stability training. They have seen as much as a 30% increase in their strength which ultimately helped them break that plato they had with their current program.
Haha, it wasn't the ball that made them stronger.
It was most likely their retarded training prior to your shift to ball work. This decrease in loads lifted was enough to allow for some fatigue dissipation, thus allowing for some nice supercompensation and strength gains.
You are familiar with the fitness-fatigue models, single factor vs. dual factor I presume?
For the laymans, post-workout recovery (really any post-stress recovery, same goes for sickness, physical injury, and so on) occurs like a wave. There's an immediate decrease in the state, then an increase back to the original state, then a subsequent "supercompensation" where the body actually overcompensates for the stress. In this case, the desired outcome is more contractile proteins in the muscle and increased performance and strength.
This can be viewed from the acute or the chronic. A power-lifter at pretty much any level, unless he's knowledgeable, most likely overkills his system systemically.
Put him on a ball and allow for the accumulation of fatigue to subside by training with lighter weights, bring him back in a couple of weeks to power-lifting, and WALLA!, you've got increased strength and performance.
Not because of the ball. I could have simply done some deloading in his weights and used the same powerlifting exercises he was doing before and realized the same increase in performance.
It seems like you are lacking much of the basic physiology required to prove your point here. Trust me, you can use BIG words with me. I'll understand.
Explain to me in physiological terms, how training on the ball made him stronger on his big lifts.
4. Now I agree with what you said about doing more weight will burn more calories, but you will only grow to a point doing the same program all the time. To get stronger you have to change what you are doing by challenging the muscle in different ways.
Right, I think pretty much everyone knows this.
Although I find many people, and sadly many trainers that subscribe to bro-science rather than real science.
Bro, LOLZ, you got to blast the musckles from all da angles and get da pump if you want to be big. Ohz yea, and ya gotta
confuse and
shock da body too!!!!1111
I'm not saying this is you...
I'm saying most people lack the knowledge and understanding of the various adaptive responses associated with the stress imposed on our systems after lifting weights.
And these adaptive responses are what dictate program changes.
NOT some idea of muscle confusion or the like.
It is obvious he has been on his current program a while it is time for a change.
And this is obvious on what basis?
Up to the point of your original post, he made no mention of how long he's been following his current routine, unless I'm mistaken which is very possible.
Besides, it's not important.
The reason he should change his routine isn't b/c he's been on it too long.
It's b/c what he's doing doesn't really match his goals. Isn't that the real issue here?
Also adding weight by the recommendation of the professional trainer is quite different then adding weight because someone recommended you doing it off the forum.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here?
Can you explain please.
And most "professional trainers" are boobs. Honest to goodness, I find more competent people on web forums today than I do trainers in gyms. Being a trainer carries very little tout in my world.
I believe technique and form are most important in any lift.
Right, I think anyone will agree with this statement.
Nobody is saying to lift weights using heavy loads before form is learned.
If you give up technique and form for an extra 5 lbs you are doing yourself a huge disservice.
Yup.
And if someone was suggesting this, I'd call them out for it.
But at this point, it's useless banter adding nothing to the conversation or topics at hand.
I may not have 25+ years as a trainer buy I do have 7 and that is long enough to gain quite an insite into how the body works to improve performance.
Ya know, this does absolutely nothing for the conversation now.
I don't care if you tell me you're Gandhi.
Your authority is established not by what you say you've done in the past. Rather, it's established by the words that come out of your mouth here; the manner in which your present yourself.
I hope I have been a little more specific in what I am talking about. If you questions what I say go and Talk to the national accademy of sports medicine. I hardly think anyone can disagree with they say. Thanks for the challenge. Keeps me on my toes.
Ummm....
Ok.
I probably
won't do this, simply b/c I'm already certified by the NSCA. The NSCA is probably the most reliable and well-respected agency in existence today. I think very highly of NASM. I think very highly of ACSM. But none of them cover each factor of fitness to warrant them the authority in debate. There's a sea of detailed information out there that isn't covered in these certification manuals and texts. Let's stop using an appeal to authority as a crutch please. I'd hoped you come to me with a better approach than this.
