Many of those in what I would call the HIT-purist camp, most notably Dr. Doug McGuff (Body by Science), recommend a full recovery between workouts; that is to say, they don’t favor the performance of “active recovery” as it tends to alter/delay super-compensation following the inroad made during preceding workout. And, to a certain extent (and for certain n=1 cases), I do see their point. However, when I have attempted an extended period (i.e., more than one day) of out-and-out non-active, full recovery following even an off-the-charts inroading session, I always come out of that “activity hibernation” feeling a bit sluggish, both on the subsequent (after the first day post-workout) days off but, too, when I do get back in the gym, in the saddle or on the track. In other words, if I take longer than a single day’s post-workout “activity hibernation”, I lose a certain amount of edge. I wonder if this is more psychological and/or hormonal driven rather than a physiological reality. Of course, there’s also the theory of endorphin and/or adrenalin addiction, but that to me seems a little far-fetched to me. I don’t know any other way to describe this feeling other than a slight CNS sluggishness. One day of post-workout idleness and I’m fine; longer than that and I lose a good bit of “pop”. I’ve seen this in others, too, and so I know I’m not necessarily an “outlier” here. Could it be that my definition of “CNS sluggishness” is actually what a “normal” or “non-jacked” CNS is supposed to feel like? Quite possibly. That said, though, I still like the idea of “active recovery” and relatively more frequent (albeit “Conjugated”) workout sessions.
Now maybe it’s due to my close and long association with sports performance, but I do tend to see things more along the lines of a track and field coach when it comes to this issue. Of course, too, we need to recognize that the per-workout inroads here are not taken to the same magnitude as say, a true HIT beat-down. In other words, a comparison of late-in-the-workout sprint times (or distance) to the “fresh” times would indicate that the drop-off is not all that severe. Just another variable to be mindful of; again one size does not fit all.
A couple of things that ought to be defined here, first, though: one person’s “active recovery” may in fact be another person’s full-blown workout. Metabolic conditioning and recuperative status obviously have much to say by way of influence here. No big surprise, either – again, we’re talking, as always, n=1 protocol administration. But we also need to consider that the type of recuperative activity in relation to the overriding modality of previous workout has a tremendous bearing on overall recuperation. Huh? Let me explain.
The chart above is the 30,000-foot view of my own, personal, overall training prospective. HIT/HIIT methodologies tempered with Autoregulation and/or drop-offs (where appropriate), and with particular “strengths” (or aptitudes) cycled in and out of individual training sessions in a conjugate-like manner. Very rare is a workout session of mine that extends beyond 45-minutes, and an all-out single-set-to-failure type workout might take as little as 15 minutes. Where I guess you could say that I split from the HIT-purist camp is that I believe it is possible to train more frequently (and more completely) — and without overtraining, by the way — by cycling methodologies in a West Side-esque, Conjugate System manner. Will this overall view still hold true for me tomorrow? As far as I can tell, and from this vantage point, yes; however, and as always, I remain ready to shift sails according to prevailing winds and any newly-defined port-of-call. Would I prescribe this prospective to everyone? Not on your life; it does work for me, though, vis-à-vis my current location with respect to where my goals intersect with my place along the anabolic continuum. Again, n=1 rules the day, and the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of trainee’s would see their greatest improvements by following a unique-to-the-trainee-tweaked, BBS-like protocol. Simple, straight-forward, relatively easy to program and track and, most importantly, highly-effective with a minimum of time investment.
By the way, for a concise breakdown of West Side’s Conjugate system, and a bit of West Side “myth-busting” as well, check-out this Dave Tate post on the Ironbrutality site. Myth #3 will give you the quick-and-dirty overview of the Conjugate method. Actually, I’d add to that list myth #6 – that the Conjugate system works, but only for strength and power athletes. With specific tweaks, any athlete – or bodybuilder, in my opinion — can incorporate this methodology into their overall training plan. Again, the vast majority of trainees need not go there – but for those who do, the Conjugate system is a winner.
Tuesday evening workout –
A good bit of saddle time tonight prior to hitting the iron on Tuesday; probably the last of each prior to packin’ up the ol’ dog-and-pony show and headin’ down ATX way.
My intent tonight was to lead-off with some power clean work, however the rack was in use when I got in, so I had to alter things a bit. Hey, I’ve got no problem with waiting on a guy to finish heavy pulls and squats in the rack – it’s the bicep curl crowd in that same rack that drives me nuts. Anyway, I kicked things off with a kneeling jump squat, pull-up superset:
kneeling DB jumps*: 20lbs x 5, 5, 5
regular-grip pull-ups: bw x 10, 10, 10
no rest between sets, here. Then, the following superset:
flat bench, single-arm DB press: 75 x 8; 85 x 8; 90 x 7
single-arm DB row: 120 x 6; 125 x 6; 130 x 6
again, blowin’ and goin’ here, with very little rest between arms or between sets, then a rapid-fire reps few sets of power cleans:
135 x 5; 165 x 5
Reps were fast as possible here, with rest between sets just long enough to add additional weight. I followed that with a rest-pause set of 7 singles at 185.
*As I’ve mentioned before, I prefer to use DBs for this exercise, but it really doesn’t make much difference; you can use a barbell as well, as in this demonstration, and in my experience you’ll be able to handle a significantly greater overall weight if you do so. I think you can better transfer power to a barbell than to a pair of DBs, but that’s just speculation on my part. The key is to really engage the hips in the movement. If you’ve got sleepy hips in the Oly movements, this exercise will help fix that. Also, if you use DBs for this movement, be sure to explosively shrug the weight up (as you would in a normal Oly/Oly derivative lift), as opposed to “arcing” the DBs outward and forward so as to provide upward momentum.
And speaking of effective and efficient power transfer through the torso (or “core”), check out this SpeedEndurance.com podcast interview with Dr. Stuart McGill. Dr. McGill is known as “the back doctor”, but as you’ll hear in the interview, the good doctor also knows a good deal about performance enhancement, especially when it comes to power transfer through a rock-solid torso.
Also something interesting I ran across this week was a podcast interview with Dr. Joel Wallach, author of the book, Immortality. The topic of the discussion centers around the depletion of minerals from the soil, and the effects of that condition on human physiology. It’s a very interesting interview, especially for those concerned about the quality of their food. I know I don’t need to point-out to folks who read this blog, but a food’s being labeled “organic” in no way ensures that that food was raised in a healthy-soil environment. The interview can be found here, and it’s show #695 (Doctor of Ashes). Good stuff.
So things are likely to get a bit silent around here for the next few days, as I complete my relocation to “the ATX”, and integrate into Efficient Exercise team. Check-out the sidebar for Twitter updates from the road, as Meesus TTP and I meander on down Austin way. So adios for now, and I’ll see y’all on the flip-side. Be good, work hard, and of course, stay paleo 🙂