How to NOT burn out your CNS

[ryuten]

Okay, I was just wondering how NOT to burn out your CNS. To start off the list, these are what i know:

do NOT workout 7x a week. I prefer to at least have 2 rest days a week.
do NOT train to failure
Get enough sleep

feel free to add some more, so I won't mess myself up.

[deserusan]

I have often thought about this as well. Not burning out your CNS aides in speedy recovery, which is a grossly overlooked aspect of bodybuilding. This is what I have learned works for me:

1. Good diet including enough protein, carbs, EFA's and eating more than 3 meals a day (8 for me).

2. Supplementing BCAA's, a good multivitamin, protein powders, and fish oil.

3. Rotating workouts and exercises.

4. Alternating between heavy and light weight schemes.

5. Proper sleep.

6. Knowing when to use dropsets, supersets, training to failure, partials, giant sets, etc. These should be integral to your workouts but used sparingly.

7. Knowing what stimulates your muscles to grow and not overtraining.

8. Keeping workout sessions under an hour.

9. Knowing how to warm up and cool down effectively, including stretching.

10. This may not be possible for everyone, but getting deep tissue massage. You wouldn't believe how much better recovery and quality of your muscles are until you get these regularly. If you can't afford it get a hand massager. It may seem a little queer but it works.

[Dominik]

Okay, I was just wondering how NOT to burn out your CNS. To start off the list, these are what i know:

do NOT workout 7x a week. I prefer to at least have 2 rest days a week.
do NOT train to failure
Get enough sleep

feel free to add some more, so I won't mess myself up.

I think the key one is varying the training load. Not going for broke on every lift in every workout and trying to set PRs in everything, week after week, ad infinitum. Like at the workout level, if you're going hard on deads, back it off a little on rows. Going hard on presses, back it off a little on dips. Essentially using some aspects of short-term periodization to manage your training.

[b0ngman]

a good diet full of carbs will help as well

[slippy]

do NOT train to failure

Although that's a general rule, the underlying message is not to fry out your neural drive / trigger high rate coding for a significant period of time. This is actually a really complex issue because you have to consider how fatigue and workout parameters affect the rise of rate coding. From a session-to-session point of view, you then have to consider peripheral characteristics related to Ca2+ availablity and sarcolemma/ER remodeling. From a long-term point of view, you have to consider the long-term cortisol response against conditioning. Something like 10x10 is going to be much harsher on your CNS than 3x-a-week full-body HIT.

With that being said, the most important factors usually are diet and sleep. To a significant degree, you can eat yourself out of fatigue, and you can sleep out of systemic overtraining. It's just that the idea of eating 750+ calories of carbs after workouts, 1000-1500 calories in caloric surplus, 2*BW in protein, etc.. scares off most people.

Now, you can manipulate your training using periodization principles, particularly Dual Factor, should you wish to take advantage of compensatory factors while being less than 80% optimal function. From a performance point of view, your training will dictate diet.

[NumberTwentyTwo]

!!!!!anitoxidents!!!!!!

[$AJ]

I think the key one is varying the training load. Not going for broke on every lift in every workout and trying to set PRs in everything, week after week, ad infinitum. Like at the workout level, if you're going hard on deads, back it off a little on rows. Going hard on presses, back it off a little on dips. Essentially using some aspects of short-term periodization to manage your training.

i don't think it's wrong to go 'for broke', as long as you stop short of failure....i.e., every week i go for +1rep (or +5pds), worked quite well for the last ~14yrs. Only times i've had a problem w/ it is when I push it.....you know, where you're shaking and flopping all over like a dead fihs to get that last rep out.

[Sir_Malak]

i don't think it's wrong to go 'for broke', as long as you stop short of failure....i.e., every week i go for +1rep (or +5pds), worked quite well for the last ~14yrs. Only times i've had a problem w/ it is when I push it.....you know, where you're shaking and flopping all over like a dead fihs to get that last rep out.

fish on crack !

Id like to add 'keep your mind in check.' whats this got to do with anything? well I believe if your mind tells you lets do it and is gung-ho over doing something your much more likely to do it properly and with a strong mind know when to stop

[Dominik]

i don't think it's wrong to go 'for broke', as long as you stop short of failure....i.e., every week i go for +1rep (or +5pds), worked quite well for the last ~14yrs. Only times i've had a problem w/ it is when I push it.....you know, where you're shaking and flopping all over like a dead fihs to get that last rep out.

Well, you're following a specific style of training (DC) with low volume, that does involve some form of periodization ("blasting" and "cruising").

I'm talking about the guy who goes in week after week, forever, trying to set PRs on every lift. Beyond the beginner level, it's a road to nowhere. In that context, I'm sure you know what I meant.

[Big Bamboo]

Okay, I was just wondering how NOT to burn out your CNS. To start off the list, these are what i know:

do NOT workout 7x a week. I prefer to at least have 2 rest days a week.
do NOT train to failure
Get enough sleep

feel free to add some more, so I won't mess myself up.

I wouldn't worry about training to failure "burning out your CNS". Lots of guy on this board, and athletes in general (like in the NFL), train to failure on a consistent basis on are fine. This whole "CNS fatigue" thing is nice in theory, but that's it.

However, you will have problems if you do forced reps/negatives/intensity enhancer stuff on a consistent basis. Don't do these very often at all.

You should also take periodic layoffs of a week or so. Whenever I do that, I come back feeling better and stronger.

[psychojoe]

I wouldn't worry about training to failure "burning out your CNS". Lots of guy on this board, and athletes in general (like in the NFL), train to failure on a consistent basis on are fine. This whole "CNS fatigue" thing is nice in theory, but that's it.

I think its a case of widely varying recovery abilities between people. I seem to overtrain just getting out of bed - I eat as much as I can without getting fat (and more), and theres only so much sleep one can get - so imo im just stuck with it

People with awesome recovery ability call BS on that kinda **** though, because it's not true for them

[Dominik]

I wouldn't worry about training to failure "burning out your CNS". Lots of guy on this board, and athletes in general (like in the NFL), train to failure on a consistent basis on are fine. This whole "CNS fatigue" thing is nice in theory, but that's it.

It goes beyond theory. Be a good troll and tell me why "advanced HIT trainees" need 5-7 days rest between workouts? It wouldn't have anything to do with feeling absolutely f***ed after doing the submaximal equivalent of 8-12 sets of 1RM attempts would it? As in 100% of their rep maximum on EVERY SET. No correlation there?

You should also take periodic layoffs of a week or so. Whenever I do that, I come back feeling better and stronger.

Effectively periodize your training and you don't need to take an entire week off unless you want to, since the pattern of load progression and intensity/volume/frequency variation will take accumulated fatigue into account.

[Big Bamboo]

I think its a case of widely varying recovery abilities between people. I seem to overtrain just getting out of bed - I eat as much as I can without getting fat (and more), and theres only so much sleep one can get - so imo im just stuck with it

People with awesome recovery ability call BS on that kinda **** though, because it's not true for them

It does depend on the person. I've read about people who moved to doing 1 rep short of failure and made better gains. They kept the volume constant.

And, Dominik, I'm not even replying to your nonsense. I suggest you do some more research on RFD, as you clearly aren't aware of the scientific research done in the field (hint: Behm & Sale again).

[Dominik]

And, Dominik, I'm not even replying to your nonsense. I suggest you do some more research on RFD, as you clearly aren't aware of the scientific research done in the field (hint: Behm & Sale again).

I'm not the one contraindicating explosive lifting. It's how I train, I've discussed it in a lot of detail, and I don't need to keep going over it. You're the one who clearly doesn't know what is going on and are now stuck on "Behm & Sale."

In the meantime, explain to your fans on the RELEVANT THREAD, how HIT addresses RFD, period. So far you've drawn a blank.

I repeat, you have not explained how HIT addresses RFD. The fruits of your latest Google mission, "Behm & Sale," has nothing to do with it. You are against any form of explosive lifting regardless of the load, and you said "when in doubt, lift slower, not faster." How does that address rate of force development? A: It doesn't.

[Big Bamboo]

It does depend on the person. I've read about people who moved to doing 1 rep short of failure and made better gains. They kept the volume constant.

And, Dominik, I'm not even replying to your nonsense. I suggest you do some more research on RFD, as you clearly aren't aware of the scientific research done in the field (hint: Behm & Sale again).

And BTW, here's another synopsis of what I provided to Dominik re: RFD. Judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Dominik can counter with some actual studies that show before and after measures of RFD with subjects using "slow" speeds with heavy weights vs. "fast" speeds using submaximal weights, if he likes. Good luck finding that. If you can't, then how can you draw any conclusions? no data, no conclusions. No opinion papers, no "so-and-so said so", actual DATA. If you don't have that, then stop wasting everyone's time.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coach...vol21/behm.htm

Sorry to the rest of you for going off-topic, but this guy is a real troll and sometimes needs a good dose of reality to wake him up.

[Dominik]

And BTW, here's another synopsis of what I provided to Dominik re: RFD. Judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Dominik can counter with some actual studies that show before and after measures of RFD with subjects using "slow" speeds with heavy weights vs. "fast" speeds using submaximal weights, if he likes. Good luck finding that. If you can't, then how can you draw any conclusions? no data, no conclusions. No opinion papers, no "so-and-so said so", actual DATA. If you don't have that, then stop wasting everyone's time.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coach...vol21/behm.htm

Sorry to the rest of you for going off-topic, but this guy is a real troll and sometimes needs a good dose of reality to wake him up.

WTF does any of this Behm & Sale crap have to do with the original question?

I asked you how HIT addresses Rate of Force Development. You Googled up this Behm & Sale study to tell us what exactly? That you can cut & paste ****? Well we can see that.

"Avoid explosive, ballistic movements at all costs. Lifting a weight "faster" does NOT make you more "explosive"." (HIT FAQ)

"If in doubt, move slower, never faster." (HIT FAQ)

Can you not read any of this? The above quotes CANCEL OUT any further words that come out of your mouth. It's case closed. HIT is against all forms of explosive lifting. The message is "if in doubt, lift slower, NEVER FASTER." I repeat, "NEVER FASTER." This renders "Behm & Sale," NULL AND VOID in this discussion.

Conclusion? HIT has no RFD component. None. Heavy weights, light weights, it doesn't matter, it is against any form of speed-strength/explosive-strength work. Period.

Posting the words "Behm & Sale" over and over is not answering the question. You're not answering it because you can't. I already answered it. HIT can only put size on an athlete through focusing on hypertrophy with progressively heavier weights. It cannot improve performance in any sporting movement where the time to generate maximal force is too short for the heavy weights being used to improve performance any further. HIT has NO ANSWER. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Nought. Nix. None.

[Big Bamboo]

And BTW, here's another synopsis of what I provided to Dominik re: RFD. Judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Dominik can counter with some actual studies that show before and after measures of RFD with subjects using "slow" speeds with heavy weights vs. "fast" speeds using submaximal weights, if he likes. Good luck finding that. If you can't, then how can you draw any conclusions? no data, no conclusions. No opinion papers, no "so-and-so said so", actual DATA. If you don't have that, then stop wasting everyone's time.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coach...vol21/behm.htm

Sorry to the rest of you for going off-topic, but this guy is a real troll and sometimes needs a good dose of reality to wake him up.

And I'm sorry to bother you guys, but just one more thing to help Dominik, and I'll repeat it only once here then just cut and paste this post to remind him in the future.

When you are pushing as hard as you can on the last 1-2 reps, you are TRYING TO MOVE THE WEIGHT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. However, the weight does NOT move fast, it moves slowly (duh). I would think anyone with a brain can read the guidelines in the HIT FAQ and clearly realize that when it says you should move the weight slowly, it's talking about the reps BEFORE failure.

I mean, c'mon, that's like saying we need to tell people to stop taking medicine after they are sick. Some things are obvious to those with brains.

I should also note that the other studies I've read online while trying to help Dominik show an increase in RFD after subjects lifted *heavy* weights at *regular* speeds, i.e., not fast. So even if you just lift heavy weights, and not to failure, you will improve your RFD. Look it up if you don't believe me, it's a simple GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE search.

Still waiting on those studies I mentioned, Dom. How about starting a RFD thread and not bother anyone on other threads? Be considerate.

Again, sorry to trouble the rest of you. I think Dominik is just going through one of his psychotic episodes, and I'm trying to ease him out of it.

[W8isGR8]

And I'm sorry to bother you guys, but just one more thing to help Dominik, and I'll repeat it only once here then just cut and paste this post to remind him in the future.

When you are pushing as hard as you can on the last 1-2 reps, you are TRYING TO MOVE THE WEIGHT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. However, the weight does NOT move fast, it moves slowly (duh). I would think anyone with a brain can read the guidelines in the HIT FAQ and clearly realize that when it says you should move the weight slowly, it's talking about the reps BEFORE failure.

I mean, c'mon, that's like saying we need to tell people to stop taking medicine after they are sick. Some things are obvious to those with brains.

I should also note that the other studies I've read online while trying to help Dominik show an increase in RFD after subjects lifted *heavy* weights at *regular* speeds, i.e., not fast. So even if you just lift heavy weights, and not to failure, you will improve your RFD. Look it up if you don't believe me, it's a simple GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE search.

Still waiting on those studies I mentioned, Dom. How about starting a RFD thread and not bother anyone on other threads? Be considerate.

Again, sorry to trouble the rest of you. I think Dominik is just going through one of his psychotic episodes, and I'm trying to ease him out of it.

Kill yourself Ron.

[Dominik]

When you are pushing as hard as you can on the last 1-2 reps, you are TRYING TO MOVE THE WEIGHT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. However, the weight does NOT move fast, it moves slowly (duh). I would think anyone with a brain can read the guidelines in the HIT FAQ and clearly realize that when it says you should move the weight slowly, it's talking about the reps BEFORE failure.

Oh yeah, sounds like the perfect time to try and improve RFD. When your muscles are dying

You're the worst thing to ever happen to these forums. You spend 98% trolling HIT/failure/CNS related threads looking for opportunities to plug your tired old book that should be free. And you hate me because I was the one who exposed your little sham. And you hate me putting down the word "hardgainer" too, don't you?

There you are going on about "meds" and "psychotic episodes," when you're an old man masquerading as a 21yr old student/HIT n00b. I think someone here has a serious problem and I don't think it's me.

[W8isGR8]

Here you go

[$AJ]

Here you go

lmao

[gymratluke]

Here you go

I fricken love that picture! Its so damn funny, I laugh everytime I open it and see hit ugly mug!

[Big Bamboo]

Here you go

Weren't you banned?

[W8isGR8]

Yes, and now I'm not.



Die now.

[Big Bamboo]

Oh yeah, sounds like the perfect time to try and improve RFD. When your muscles are dying

I'm sorry to hear you disagree with the scientific resesarch.

Really mature too, negative repping me. How old are you, 12?

You're the worst thing to ever happen to these forums. You spend 98% trolling HIT/failure/CNS related threads looking for opportunities to plug your tired old book that should be free. And you hate me because I was the one who exposed your little sham. And you hate me putting down the word "hardgainer" too, don't you?

I don't hate you. I think you have a lot of potential. I've even said I think you are a smart guy in other threads, and backed up some of the things you've said.

I just don't understand your insanity wrt Ron/HIT. And I'm not here to figure it out.

[slippy]

It took a nation of millions to bring him back.

[W8isGR8]

Weren't you banned?

Hey Schwarzzy? You know having multiple accounts is a bannable offense right

[Dominik]

I'm sorry to hear you disagree with the scientific resesarch.

Really mature too, negative repping me. How old are you, 12?

First neg rep ever. And it felt good.

I don't hate you. I think you have a lot of potential. I've even said I think you are a smart guy in other threads, and backed up some of the things you've said.

I just don't understand your insanity wrt Ron/HIT. And I'm not here to figure it out.

Do you realize had you just signed up and been like everyone else here, helping and exchanging ideas with no agenda, that there'd never be a problem. I don't agree with everyone. I'm sure there are lots of people here who don't agree with me. But that doesn't make me dislike them.

You have been a bull****ter from day one and therein lies the problem. Why couldn't you just put all the crap behind you and start afresh? "Yes, it's me, Rob Spector, let's move on." But you can't do it. Do you think I'd care if some guy with a book posted here? What bothered me was the way you went about plugging your book. I exposed your little sham and you've been at odds with me ever since.

So why don't you just quit the garbage and try and fit in. That means not trolling people's journals to question their motives. That means not promoting your book unless someone asks about it. That means contributing to all kinds of threads and not the same old HIT/failure/CNS crap where all the arguments start. Think about it.

[Big Bamboo]

Hey Schwarzzy? You know having multiple accounts is a bannable offense right

Isn't that why you were banned? Tell us.

[Big Bamboo]

Yes, and now I'm not.



Die now.

We'll see how long you'll be on here before you're banned again.

"Die now"? "Kill yourself"?

I may disagree with Dominik, but I wouldn't - and I know he wouldn't either - say such stupid things.

You have no class.