I'm not sure he has all his facts right (above my pay grade), but some interesting commentary:
Differences between natural training vs enhanced training
- Thread starter Frederick Foresight
- Start date
Yes, he comes across well. And some of his points resonated. But others are in conflict with findings from Ralph Carpinelli's critical commentary on the stimulus for hypertrophy in experienced trainees:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...e-hypertrophy-in-experienced-trainees.350225/
Specifically, I refer to volume, frequency and rep ranges. Also, Thibaudeau equates intensity with poundages rather than as a measure of effort. I prefer the latter interpretation.
Damn, it's tough being a marginally informed layman.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...e-hypertrophy-in-experienced-trainees.350225/
Specifically, I refer to volume, frequency and rep ranges. Also, Thibaudeau equates intensity with poundages rather than as a measure of effort. I prefer the latter interpretation.
Damn, it's tough being a marginally informed layman.
This would seem to make an argument for full body workouts rather than any kind of split. If you're in the gym daily the cortisol levels would stay elevated regardless of muscle groups being worked, right?
The things he mentions reminded me of a book he wrote many years ago: "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Body Transformation From Both Sides of the Force", by Christian Thibaudeau and Antony Roberts. In this book he explains the same differences between natural and enhanced training.
That's a reasonable conclusion. But.
The issue I have with his video is his threshold levels. When he was talking about rep ranges (where the research I have come across doesn't quite agree with him), he mentioned doing 6 sets of x reps for naturals. So is that 6 sets per exercise or per muscle group? Even if we conservatively assume 6 sets per muscle group, he suggests that naturals should work each muscle group up to 3 times a week.
That's 18 sets a week per muscle group. Times how many muscle groups? That would be far too many sets for a single workout, especially for people (most of them) who also do single joint exercises on top of compounds. So, at those combined volumes the workout would likely need to be split. And to do each muscle group three times a week, you'd then likely have to work out 6 days a week, assuming only a 2-way split and working out only once a day. How long can a natural work out in this manner with any meaningful intensity before he is ground to dust? I certainly couldn't in my prime, and I sure as hell can't do so now.
Speaking only for myself, the best gains I ever made were in the early '90s with an ABA BAB split, where each muscle group got worked 3 times every 2 weeks. Looking back, I think I was still unnecessarily overdoing it, because those were 2.5-hour workouts (including 30 minutes of cardio). When I tried to do each muscle group twice a week at those volumes and with high intensity, I couldn't keep it up; it was just too much. And that was then, when I was in the general vicinity of my prime.
Last edited:
Here's a video of his that makes perfect sense to me without reservation or qualification:
You will recall from the first video, that Thibaudeau said that myofibril protein synthesis (MPS) drove hypertrophy. On the matter of sets per muscle group (or was it per exercise; Thibaudeau didn't clarify), I recall a piece by Clarence Bass that he wrote a number of years ago addressing the relationship between volume and protein synthesis:
https://www.cbass.com/Volumetraining.htm
He referred to two studies performed at McMaster University in Canada by the same group of researchers. One study found that while 3 sets had a more lasting effect on MPS than 1 set, the other study found that 6 sets did not induce more MPS than 3 sets. So there is a ceiling. Thibaudeau's reference to 6 sets exceeds that ceiling, at least according to these studies.
So single set training seems to make sense, from both an efficacy and efficiency perspective, provided that more than one exercise is done to address any given major muscle group.
Thibaudeau also mentioned that low reps with heavier weights are better than higher reps with lighter weights to build muscle. However, a study conducted several years ago suggests that when subjects lift loads equivalent to 90% of their 1 RM versus lifting a load that represents only 30% of 1 RM, but both 90% and 30% perform to voluntary fatigue, similar increments in the synthesis of new muscle proteins are shown:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2918506/
This is why I mentioned in an earlier post that I took issue with Thibaudeau's suggested volume and rep ranges. What I found most useful from his video was the relative differences in training when natural vs when enhanced, rather than his absolute recommendations.
Just thought I'd clarify the comment in my earlier post.
https://www.cbass.com/Volumetraining.htm
He referred to two studies performed at McMaster University in Canada by the same group of researchers. One study found that while 3 sets had a more lasting effect on MPS than 1 set, the other study found that 6 sets did not induce more MPS than 3 sets. So there is a ceiling. Thibaudeau's reference to 6 sets exceeds that ceiling, at least according to these studies.
So single set training seems to make sense, from both an efficacy and efficiency perspective, provided that more than one exercise is done to address any given major muscle group.
Thibaudeau also mentioned that low reps with heavier weights are better than higher reps with lighter weights to build muscle. However, a study conducted several years ago suggests that when subjects lift loads equivalent to 90% of their 1 RM versus lifting a load that represents only 30% of 1 RM, but both 90% and 30% perform to voluntary fatigue, similar increments in the synthesis of new muscle proteins are shown:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2918506/
This is why I mentioned in an earlier post that I took issue with Thibaudeau's suggested volume and rep ranges. What I found most useful from his video was the relative differences in training when natural vs when enhanced, rather than his absolute recommendations.
Just thought I'd clarify the comment in my earlier post.
Do you do a warmup set before the one working set? Before each working set of every exercise? A general across the board warmup and then just do working sets? What does that look like for you?
I’m hardly a worthwhile standard to go by, but to answer your question, my ~HIIT at the beginning of my workout serves as my warmup. I used to do HIIT after the resistance work, but now that I work out first thing upon awakening, I need it to get me going. Also, moving right into the resistance part of the workout about a minute after the HIIT keeps the intensity high throughout the workout.
When I lifted heavier and at a faster cadence, I always did a warmup set before doing the work set(s). Presently, I do not. My reps are anywhere from 6 to 8 seconds each, so the first few reps serve as a fairly safe warmup. I focus on slow, perfect form. Plus, I always start the resistance work with legs, so the body weight squats I do beforehand at speed, which serves as the principal portion of my HIIT, prepare me quite well for legs.
You may or may not recall that I used to work out in the later afternoon. At that time I took longer breaks between exercises. After a lifetime of doing it this way, I really revel in going all out early in the morning with minimal rest between sets. It’s...an experience. It may or may not be optimal, but it meets all of the 3 Bs: brief, basic, and brutal. And then I have the whole day in front of me. (But, sadly, no cardio bunnies.)
Last edited: