The fundamentals of heavy lifting by Pavel Tsatsouline
 

October 17, 2005

:thup:The fundamentals of heavy lifting :thup:

Question: Why are you so fundamentalist in your training philosophy? 'Never do more than five reps', 'never go to failure', etc. There are people who got big and strong without following them, aren’t there?

I will restate my 'iron communist' views:

1. You must lift heavy.
2. You must limit your reps to five.
3. You must avoid muscle failure.
4. You must cycle your loads.
5. You must stay tight. Tension is power.
6. You must treat your strength as a skill and ‘practice’ with iron rather than ‘work out’.
7. You must strive to do fewer things better.

My ‘fundamentalism’ is meant to give you the safest and most foolproof path to your goals – size and strength. Why overcomplicate your life with multiple choices if you can get the job done simply?

At a recent RKC seminar one of my senior instructors Rob Lawrence made an excellent point that all training 'laws' are reversible under the right circumstances. Take 'the law of staying tight' as an example. Extreme full body tension is an absolute must for one-rep strength that impresses; I dare you to find a good powerlifter who does not practice it! Yet gireviks, athletes who compete in kettlebell lifting, stay as loose as they can when pressing. Tension accelerates fatigue, which is unacceptable in the brutal Russian strength-endurance sport.

Yet I never recommend this approach to those who do not plan on competing. My shoulders feel just fine when they are braced with tension, even with the heaviest kettlebells. But whenever I demo a ‘stay loose’ press for the guys and gals who will wear red, white, and blue at the Worlds in a couple of years, I immediately get a twinge where I took a bad fall once. The ‘law of staying tight' has been broken, but at a price – compromised safety.

All training laws and guidelines are reversible in the right context. The caveat: it takes knowledge and experience to reverse them properly and sometimes you must be willing to pay the price. Until you have been in the iron game for a decade and accomplished something, break these 'laws' at your risk.

http://www.dragondoor.com/hardstyle/news/?l=3807193

#3 confuses me. i was taught the only way to build muscle and strength was through culmulative exhaustion and temporary muscle failure.

#5 do you mean your whole body or just the parts of the body doing work? seems like it would tire you out quickly and make #3 hard to avoid.

#3 - the benefit of not training to failure is reduced muscle soreness and faster recuperation. Muscles can be worked more often, resulting in a higher volume of training.

#5 - irradiation/hyperirradiation - mastering the art of tension results in instant strength increases and protects the body against injury. Fatigue does set in, which is why this technique is used for short duration lifts. Strength endurance is based on the opposite; relaxation.

Thanks for posting this. I've actually heard the exact opposite of these rules. I have to say that I agree with them for the most part. It's interesting how many different theories out there there are.

kbfunTH, do use these principles in your strength training routine?

Nice article!
I agree with all except This depends on your goals. For women to gain size, it's been suggested we incorporate the 6-10 rep range as well. Plus, if your goal is muscular endurance, then the higher rep ranges (12-15+) are helpful.

Here's a good article discussing the slight differences in reps and sets for women. http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459296

Last night I watched 60 minutes and saw a profine of Bode, the top American skier. They showed him working with weights. He did an odd version of squats. A trainer using pulleys and levers raised a 350 pound weight to shoulder height. Then Bode lowered the weight to the point his ass was touching his calves. Then the trainer brought the weight back up for the next rep.

Can anyone tell me the reason for something like this? Why is lowering the weight but not lifting the weight a good thing?

The reason he was training this way is because the majority of muscle damage is done on the negative (or eccentric) phase of lifting.

If you're interested, here's an article that explains the concept in some depth. Hope you find it useful, or at least interesting!

http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic..._18/ai_94672582

If he's training according to Pavel's techniques, his lowering of the weight could be to get him used to 350 lbs on his back. Maybe he routinely pulls 3g's on a GS or downhill turn.

If this is the case, he is absolutely avoiding trauma. He's training his nerves to recruit enough muscle fibers, and his body to generate enough tension to handle the load. He's probably working on his breathing, too. By avoiding muscle trauma, he could actually repeat and build on the training in another few hours.

But there could be a whole 'nother explanation for the exercise: he will routinely get crushed by turns and landings, but the very last thing Bode Miller will ever do on a ski course (literally) is to explode out of his tuck position going 80 mph.

Yes. I train this way about 90% of the time. The exception would be high rep kettlebell training for strength endurance and bodyweight training.

When training for size, I maintain the low rep range and up the number of sets (10-20), known as Russian Bear Training.

Awesome piece of info for proper powerlifting!

This whole series of posts, even the squats post where I commented a wee bit to the contrary for the average guy (I should have said casual weighlifter in hindsight), this whole series of posts has been very informative!
:thup: