Weightlifting strategies

I think the biggest thing in the strength/weight training discussion is as long as it is an 'establish program/routine', it is about your personal preference. I was very in the dark and I finally have an establish structure (will be starting today) and I so see how it is far more effective/efficient then (when you have an established program/routine/workout), compared to the 'as long as you are doing something' saying.

I don't know what specific exercises those trainers are doing or what the clients' goals are, so i won't comment on their workout.. but i'll speak in favor of full-body strength training workouts:

1) They simulate how we tend to use our body in the real world, so they better prepare people for situations that use your whole body (moving furniture, doing heavy yardwork, wrestling with kids, playing football, etc). 

2) It puts less stress on each body part at each workout, which reduces the risk of injury.  And since each body part doesn't get as fatigued, you're more likely to have better form toward the end of the workout, which again reduces the risk of injury.

3) You can include exercises which work 2 or more muscle groups at 1 time.  See #1 for the benefit of that.  

4) You can incorporate other components of fitness besides strength, like agilty, balance, coordination, speed, etc.  Again, see #1 for the benefits.  

Personally i don't use exercise balls or benches that often.  I prefer standing exercises, for the reasons already mentioned.  Resistance bands are ok once a while to change things up.  Variety is the key for functional fitness.

I am one of the supporters of the New Rules of Lifting programs- having done ALL the books - I am only just starting the latest book NROL For Life as it was just released less than a month ago. 

The basic rules are

1 Do something,

2 do something you like

3 The rest is just details

With that in mind if you enjoy doing the program you are using and it is giving you the results you want then that is the program for you.  Also the moves are designed to imitate moves we use in life.  "Functional fitness" if you want.  For me this means being able to carry in my groceries in maybe just one trip.  If it was a short trip - maybe 5 bags I can carry them in one hand go up the 5 steps and not lose balance while I have my keys in teh other to unlock the door-

I tried "Body for Life" which had a lot of the isolation moves when I first began lifting.  I kind of got bored and it just wasn't effective for me.

I did NROL4W 3 times over the years and had pretty good success - Once I joined a real gym with more free weights available I was able to get even better results.

I did NROL ( original) all the fat loss portions, the strength programs and attempted the hypertrophy program but ended up injuring myself so stopped.  _ I was using the inadequate gym at that time so was limited with no squat rack and free weights were limited too - mostly that tiny gym ( community college) only thought lifting meant machines!

I've also have done Female Body Breakthrough which was written by the wife of the guy who designed all the actual lilfting portions of NROL- when I followed her eating plan I had the best results in losing fat and having fun at the gym and learned about metabolic workouts and not doing cardio

next I did NROLfor Abs and again - had awesome results.  I learned there never to do a crunch again.  To build the "core" you used all your muscles with full body lifting. 

Now I am doing NROL4Life and learned that the older you are the more important it is to train.  The goal of training is to change something - your body won't change without consistent hard work - you're not a kid anymore don't train like one!

I did do a 5x5 program as well( stronglifts) and after about 8 weeks got so bored with it because it was always the same exercises and same rep schemes.  I think that is one of the major reasons I enjoy NROL programs so much, just as soon as you are sick and tired of doing the same squat, deadlift, push, press moves it gives you new ones to do.  In NROL4Life it goes a bit further in that there are 5 levels for each exercise and you have to be able to perform the easier moves 15 reps with perfect form before being able to move to the next level of that "lift" for example on the split squats I can do bw  and db reverses, and reverses from a step  and offloaded from a step easily so I chose the dreaded bulgarian split squats- a level 4 in the book- but I am only doing level one for the push being push ups- and I also have to do them on an incline ( due to my injury last month I had to really dial my lifts back quite a bit)

The only "cardio" I do at this time is taking my new dog for morning walks.  All other times I only do metabolic workouts.  In NROL4Life it calls for 5- 10 min of metabolic work ( 30 sec on 30 sec rests) after the lifting.  Sometimes I can handle it, some days I haven't due to being taxed from the lifting. 

In the Female body Breakthrough she wrote compelling article showing sometimes cardio isn't that great for fat burning, right now that is my goal- maybe once I reach another 8 lbs of fat lost I'll focus on cardio again, but then again I enjoy the metabolic workouts more than doing cardio machines.  I like the rower though.  I have considered getting a bicycle and commuting to work on that.  In FBB she also said if you want to do steady state cardio it could only be something down outdoors.  Hiking, swimming, biking, walking, running etc....

Like I mentioned earlier if what you are doing is working for you and you are getting to your goals then that is great.  For me I have had the best results following "The rules"!

Now strange PT sessions, no comment except to say that is why I don't hire a PT.  I would if they were there just to perfect my form even more and let me follow the programs I do.  I have seen some PT's who are good then I've seen some that just stand there and tell the person how to use each machine and not really challenging their client much

Original Post by nicholas_shannon:

I do old school weightlifting and bodybuilding techniques. I isolate muscle groups and try to use accurate form. A lot of ppl on the forum talk about NROL, but I'm not sure what it is.

There are lots of ppl at the gym working with trainers doing strange lifting routines. They seem to mix in yoga, calisthenics, lifting, and cardio. They use exercise balls resistance bands and benches in odd ways.

Can someone argue in their favor please. I'm not sure what the benefits are and why these experts have their clients do these strange routines (strange to an old school guy at least).

Old school arguments: 1. Separating cardio and strength traing allows you to do both better. 2. Isolating muscle groups (not doing large full body, low resistance, multiple muscle exercises) allows focused and measurable improvement on every muscle. 3. Smaller single muscle movements promote better form and therefore more efficient training.

I don't know why people do the workouts in your gym, since I don't know what exactly they are doing or what their goals are.  I do however support full body lifts over isolation moves most of the time.  Compound lifts are more efficient in terms of time and developing functional strength.  I think isolation moves can be useful if you are rehabbing an injury, have a specific muscle group that is lacking, or are a bodybuilder and are trying to get one muscle larger relative to another, but other than that, meh.

Original Post by nicholas_shannon:

I do old school weightlifting and bodybuilding techniques. I isolate muscle groups and try to use accurate form. A lot of ppl on the forum talk about NROL, but I'm not sure what it is.

There are lots of ppl at the gym working with trainers doing strange lifting routines. They seem to mix in yoga, calisthenics, lifting, and cardio. They use exercise balls resistance bands and benches in odd ways.

Can someone argue in their favor please. I'm not sure what the benefits are and why these experts have their clients do these strange routines (strange to an old school guy at least).

Old school arguments: 1. Separating cardio and strength traing allows you to do both better. 2. Isolating muscle groups (not doing large full body, low resistance, multiple muscle exercises) allows focused and measurable improvement on every muscle. 3. Smaller single muscle movements promote better form and therefore more efficient training.

I'd be interested in:

1. what kind of results have you found ie. height, weight and bodyfat as weight on a bar is unlikely to be any great measure; and

2. where did you find that this type of training is "old school".  Which successful lifters/bodybuilders relied only on this type of training?

Original Post by nicholas_shannon:

1. Well the measurement is against myself, over time... So that I know there's progress. Also, it's helped tone up my loose skin on my arms (120 lbs. lost) I can't, however, compare it too the "mixed weight training" methods I'm referring too as I've never personally tried them.

2. Well I'm using routines I created in the 90's mostly from research from bodybuilding magazines and books. I guess it depends on your definition of 'old school'

I'm just interested in how you are tracking your progress (not that you have to empirically track it - your personal satisfaction may be an appropriate measure). 

Most people I know when referring to "old school" methods, refer to those used by John Grimek or even Arnold and Franco.  

Your system sounds straight out of the the Weidler stable.  I personally would have my doubts on the effectiveness of those systems, particularly for novice lifters but, hey, each to their own.

Original Post by nicholas_shannon:

Ya I read a Franco book from the 80's. Muscle and fitness magazine always had a variety of lifts demonstrated by all those big name guys at the time. That's probably my biggest source material. Lol oh man that brings back some old memories.

Yeah but before Franco "did" any of that he was an enormously strong man.  I believe his deadlift was over 700lbs (so ~3xBW) in the mid-70s.

M&F had to publish different stuff every month and people like Franco and Arnold were on the Weidler payroll so they said they "did" a lot of things to help sell magazines.

IMO if you are wanting to get big and/or strong then you should go old school - squat, press, deadlift, chin, dip, row and the Olympic lifts. 

Original Post by nicholas_shannon:

1. Well the measurement is against myself, over time... So that I know there's progress. Also, it's helped tone up my loose skin on my arms (120 lbs. lost) I can't, however, compare it too the "mixed weight training" methods I'm referring too as I've never personally tried them.

2. Well I'm using routines I created in the 90's mostly from research from bodybuilding magazines and books. I guess it depends on your definition of 'old school'

That's not really old school and copying programs out of Bodybuilding mags and books is often the worse thing you could ever do.

Push/Pull/Legs is old school

5x5 is old school

Programs that focus on getting stronger on the big compounds.

This doesn't mean newer methods don't work. There are competitive big bodybuilders out there who rarely touch a barbell. They dont care about functional strength or their performance while carrying a couple of shopping bags.

I prefer the old school methods but the fact of the matter IS people have found out that their are 101 ways to get into decent shape. Some more effective than others.

Original Post by nicholas_shannon:

I do old school weightlifting and bodybuilding techniques. I isolate muscle groups and try to use accurate form. A lot of ppl on the forum talk about NROL, but I'm not sure what it is.

There are lots of ppl at the gym working with trainers doing strange lifting routines. They seem to mix in yoga, calisthenics, lifting, and cardio. They use exercise balls resistance bands and benches in odd ways.

Can someone argue in their favor please. I'm not sure what the benefits are and why these experts have their clients do these strange routines (strange to an old school guy at least).

Old school arguments: 1. Separating cardio and strength traing allows you to do both better. 2. Isolating muscle groups (not doing large full body, low resistance, multiple muscle exercises) allows focused and measurable improvement on every muscle. 3. Smaller single muscle movements promote better form and therefore more efficient training.

I think the question benefits has to do with what you goals are. If you are looking for a functional/practical type of strength then I guess you'd wanna go with what we're calling the 'new' style. It focuses on functionality of the movements. 

if you're looking to build specific muscles, then the "old school" way works. 

for me, I'm looking to both lose weight and build a very specific physique. I don't follow an established program though. i just decided what muscles are necessary for the look I want, researched the exercises that build those(and the surrounding areas) and then created my own routine. I do my cardio separately. 

congrats on the weight loss, by the way. I'm down about 110lbs also. though I've put on about 15 lbs of muscle. 

Original Post by cvaughan02:

Original Post by nicholas_shannon:

I do old school weightlifting and bodybuilding techniques. I isolate muscle groups and try to use accurate form. A lot of ppl on the forum talk about NROL, but I'm not sure what it is.

There are lots of ppl at the gym working with trainers doing strange lifting routines. They seem to mix in yoga, calisthenics, lifting, and cardio. They use exercise balls resistance bands and benches in odd ways.

Can someone argue in their favor please. I'm not sure what the benefits are and why these experts have their clients do these strange routines (strange to an old school guy at least).

Old school arguments: 1. Separating cardio and strength traing allows you to do both better. 2. Isolating muscle groups (not doing large full body, low resistance, multiple muscle exercises) allows focused and measurable improvement on every muscle. 3. Smaller single muscle movements promote better form and therefore more efficient training.

I think the question benefits has to do with what you goals are. If you are looking for a functional/practical type of strength then I guess you'd wanna go with what we're calling the 'new' style. It focuses on functionality of the movements. 

if you're looking to build specific muscles, then the "old school" way works. 

for me, I'm looking to both lose weight and build a very specific physique. I don't follow an established program though. i just decided what muscles are necessary for the look I want, researched the exercises that build those(and the surrounding areas) and then created my own routine. I do my cardio separately. 

congrats on the weight loss, by the way. I'm down about 110lbs also. though I've put on about 15 lbs of muscle. 

 

I fail to see how being able to pick something heavy from the floor or put something heavy over your head isn't the most practical movements required and nary a bosu in sight.