Re: pre-exhausting = removing the weak link

[Guest guest]

Wayne,

You haven't removed the weak link at all - you have only created another

temporary weaker link.

For an athlete you are only as strong as your weakest link. So you would

be better off just doing squats and getting that back stronger. As well

creating temporary fatigue if the desired effect is rate of force

development or absolute strength would be counter-productive.

You have to remember Wayne - bodybuilding is a very small part of this

list. AFAIK the majority are interested in athletes and movement.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada.

WAYNE G ROWLEY wrote:

> Pre-exhaustion was not invented by H.I.T. but H.I.T. was the first to

> popularize this advanced technique in the 1950's, and it should be used

> infrequently, for specialising on different body parts, and for variety.

>

> When you do any compound movement, we would say there is a weak link. Take

> the squat, for example, and you're trying to build the upper legs - the back

> will fail first before the legs and thus the legs have not been worked as

> hard as they could have been. But if you pre-exhaust the quads by doing leg

> extension then squats, or leg extension, leg press, then squats, the legs

> will fail first, thus working them a lot harder, you have removed the weak

> link represented by lower back involvement.

[Guest guest]

Wayne,

I see what you are saying about pre-exhausting the muscle first, but what about

those whose backs don't quit before the quads, and biceps before back?

These things do not happen to me. I actually don't even feel biceps during

bent-over rows. Everyone is different. And what if I don't get as many reps on

squat? Have I still trained the exercise completely?

Not knocking you just raising questions for your opinion.

Lawrence

Haltom City, TX

WAYNE G ROWLEY wrote:

> When you do any compound movement, we would say there is a weak link. Take

> the squat, for example, and you're trying to build the upper legs - the back

> will fail first before the legs and thus the legs have not been worked as

> hard as they could have been. But if you pre-exhaust the quads by doing leg

> extension then squats, or leg extension, leg press, then squats, the legs

> will fail first, thus working them a lot harder, you have removed the weak

> link represented by lower back involvement...

[Guest guest]

Wayne Rowley's engaging post on prehaustion using direct movements for a

muscle followed immediately by compound movements aimed at taxing the target

muscle is fairly comprehensive. I'll add a few observations based on

experimentation.

and others have accurately observed that the compiles of back muscles

constitute the second largest muscle group in the body. Zane remarked years

ago the reason most bodybuilders neglect that area is due to their not being

able to see it in a mirror! Those of us without early statat Nautilus

pullover machines remain at a decided disadvantage. Until we comprehend the

principles of that machine, then generatively come up with other methods

and solutions for creating the same end.

One choice is the relative under-recognized work of Steve Holman of Ironman

with his POF - point of flexion - strategies. He's applied them to

bodybuilding, but it doesn't require a rocket scientist to re-apply them to

other forms of training objectives.

Little is currently marketing a strap like device on his web site, one

which takes the biceps out of lat movements, using the elbow as the lever

point - something I experimented with in the mid 1970s. Little's device is

apparently in short supply and a little pricey. I've used my webbing dip

belt with good results, doing various sorts of lat leverage work - akin to

doing laterals for the delts or flyes for the pecs. As a pre-exhaustion

movement. Consider the planes of movement and there's a lot you can do for

direct lat leverage movements.

Dumbbell pullovers followed immediately by " lat levers " - using a lat bar to

do a standing, slight bent forward " bottom pullover " then follwed with

rowing will bring on Larry 's burns. , following Jerry Brainam's

books of the late 80s, also suggests that all rowing and pullups/pulldowns

begin with a scapula " J shrug " followed by direct involvement the the lats,

teres, etc. Far more refined that and the HITtites.

Another excellent training option is Hammer Strength lat and pec machines.

them's my ideas.

Ken O'Neill

Wimberley, Texas

" WAYNE G ROWLEY " wrote:

> Pre-exhaustion was not invented by H.I.T. but H.I.T. was the first to

> popularize this advanced technique in the 1950's, and it should be used

> infrequently, for specialising on different body parts, and for variety.

>

> When you do any compound movement, we would say there is a weak link. Take

> the squat, for example, and you're trying to build the upper legs - the back

> will fail first before the legs and thus the legs have not been worked as

> hard as they could have been. But if you pre-exhaust the quads by doing leg

> extension then squats, or leg extension, leg press, then squats, the legs

> will fail first, thus working them a lot harder, you have removed the weak

> link represented by lower back involvement.

[Guest guest]

Hi Wayne, I see you're from Malta Sir. I am in fact half Maltese, always

have wanted to visit. Anyhow, let us move onto pre-exhaustion.

Firstly I would like to say that, I think pre-exhaustion is a good tool

and has its place. I feel it has an excellent place in bodybuilding circles for

instance. But for me, bodybuilders and hypertrophy-phase enthusiasts should use

its sparingly. In my opinion, once every 4 weeks maximum. However, here are

some flaws I believe are included in typical pre-exhaustion techniques, much

like the one you posted that Casey used.

1)The " sample " leg routine you used was interesting, however, I don't know

if it truly " worked. " The routine outlined, if it followed the " less than 3

second rest rule between isolation and compound exercises " would have comprised

a total " working set " of 53 reps. The quadriceps, for instance, would be used

for all 53 reps. The problem with this is: hypertrophy is best attained through

reps in the 8-12 range, for a TUT of 40-70 seconds. Above this time

particularily, but definitely with the amount of reps, there is little to no

hypertrophy acquired, most " gains " will come in the form of cyclic endurance.

--What suggestions do you have to address the inherent problem here?

2)For the strength athlete, do you think pre-exhaustion is beneficial? What

sorts of pre-exhaustion principles would you use to help someones's starting

strength/acceleration strength in the snatch? Would a powerlifter, for

instance, benefit from decreased weight/increased reps, focusing on decreased

bar speeds/less CNS stimulation (i.e., increased neural drive through Maximum

Load Method as described by Bompa).

Also, I am wondering if the same powerlifter might experience an alternate motor

unit activation of his prime movers and auxillary muscles, which would alter his

" proper lifting patterns. " And wouldn't any strength gains made using this

system be in the form of hypertrophy and not neural drive (not good if youre a

weightlifter trying to stay in a weight class for instance.) Any ideas here?

I really like Pre-exhaustion for hypertrophy though, I think it really works.

I have used it in the past to varying degrees, with varying results in the

good to excellent range. I have previously used an isolation movement (reps in

the 3-6 range) followed immediately by the compound equivalent (again reps in

the 3-6 range.) This allowed me to keep my work set in the desired TUT as

well as the desired rep range.

Im curious if you have tried greater rep ranges/more isolation movements and

how you're results were.

Cheers,

London, Ontario Canada

[Guest guest]

Wayne,

You wrote...

>When you do any compound movement, we would say there is a weak link.

>Take the squat, for example, and you're trying to build the upper

>legs - the back will fail first before the legs and thus the legs

>have not been worked as hard as they could have been. But if you

>pre-exhaust the quads by doing leg extension then squats, or leg

>extension, leg press, then squats, the legs will fail first, thus

>working them a lot harder, you have removed the weak link represented

>by lower back involvement.

>

>The same thing applies to bent-over rows - your biceps fail first,

>thus your upper back has not been worked that hard has it could be,

>to overcome this barbell exercise defect, you first use (preferably)

>the nautilus super pullover machine for the primary action of the

>upper back, then do rows for the secondary function. Then you will

>really work and strengthen the whole mass of the back, far more

>productive than just rows.

So, are you saying that if all someone did was bent-over rows, then the biceps

would always fail first, no matter how long they trained with just that

exercise? That the back would not get a training effect after the initial

period? Would not the biceps eventually strengthen enough so that they were at

least close to equal with the back in terms of the performance of the bent-over

row at which point all the muscles would progress at, roughly, an equal rate?

Gray Lipford

Richmond, VA

[Guest guest]

Yes, during pre-exhaustion are you not creating more weakness in the weak areas

so that they never have a chance to catch up. I think logic would say that

pre-exhaustion has no real support. Lets put it simple, if I wear out a weak

area say before a multi-joint movement, that would take away from my strong

areas because they give out and will not help support?

But lets ask is pre-exhaustion meant for strength, or bodybuilding? I

personally can not see its use for strength.

Lawrence

Haltom city TX

Matti Putkonen wrote:

> I wonder how scientifically supported the theory regarding this method

> is ?

>

> Effect of pre-exhaustion exercise on lower-extremity muscle activation

> during a leg press exercise. (J Strength Cond Res. 2003 May;17(2):411-6.)

>

> " Our findings do not support the popular belief of weight trainers

> that performing pre-exhaustion exercise is more effective in order to

> enhance muscle activity compared with regular weight training.

> Conversely, pre-exhaustion exercise may have disadvantageous effects

> on performance, such as decreased muscle activity and reduction in

> strength, during multijoint exercise. "

[Guest guest]

Hi there all,

asked: what exactly is the physiology behind " a deeper level of failure " ?

Wayne replies:

The scientific study of a deeper level of failure, is based on Ellington Darden

PhD and Arthur based h.i.t. style, and it is my OPINION and experiences

with different people, that it is the fastest way (if not overdone) to achieve

muscle size and strength.

[Wayne, there does not appear to be any " scientific study " here in terms of

" depth of failure " . This is what Hobman was getting at. Gray -ST

Moderator]

Thank you Wayne

Valletta Malta

[Guest guest]

Wayne Rowley wrote:

> The scientific study of a deeper level of failure, is based on Ellington

> Darden PhD and Arthur based h.i.t. style, and it is my OPINION and

> experiences with different people, that it is the fastest way (if not

> overdone) to achieve muscle size and strength.

" Failure " is a very misleading term. Generally in the HIT area it

denotes momentary concentric exhaustion. Casey Butt wrote an excellent

article on all the various causes of failure - from an energetic

standpoint, from a byproduct standpoint, from a psychological

standpoint. His point was - if someone put a gun to your head when you

think you had failed after 15 reps or so and said, " Do another or I'll

shoot! " you'd probably get another rep out.

Zatsiorsky uses a much more appropriate term - he calls it " refusal " . As

in " training to refusal " . His point is that it is normally an act of the

will. So from this standpoint Wayne may be onto something. Or I felt he

could be referring to a chain of concentric failure, static failure,

eccentric failure with eccentric failure being " the deepest " .

The problem I have, once again, is no validation or scientific basis for

Wayne's claims. It is pure dogma, based on blind allegiance. Apparently

my name is not held in wide regard by certain associates of Waynes with

a belief in HIT - possibly because I not only demand science, but

rigorous science. There are a lot of crappy studies out there.

Wayne, you don't appear to have even a rudimentary knowledge of human

physiology. I strongly suggest you regard the reading list I posted

earlier and get studying! If you really desire knowledge you have to

look at both sides of the argument. From the HIT side there are some

researchers such as Matt Bryzcki (I hope is spelt that right!) who are

doing actual research. I have been critical of Matt's methodology, but

at least he is using science and attempting to learn. If Wayne has

actual studies Supertraining needs to see cites so we can analyze the

studies.

I invite Wayne to read another article by Casey

http://www.geocities.com/scufc/SetsFailure.html

and rebutt (with scientific cites) the points Casey makes regarding

training to failure.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada.