Comments on: Playing With Fire, Part I

By: shrenik

shrenik — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:20:30 +0000

ok got it thanks 🙂 i have been reading lots of ur articles lately..on askscooby and recently on evil’ website..do u write anywhere else too? 🙂

By: Wolf

Wolf — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:46:23 +0000

In reply to shrenik. Quicker progression (weight-wise) is one of the reasons why compounds are better than isolations. Others include more total overload, more muscle mass being worked, more coordination and neuromuscular activity, plus the advantage of not having to worry that much about structural balance. Compounds producing more T and HGH than isolations is a debatable thing. I have fairly recently seen two studies, one claiming that this actually does exist, while the other said that the increased release is insufficient to make a noticeable difference. In the long run, it makes little difference.

By: shrenik

shrenik — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:14:02 +0000

about advantages of compounds over isolations…i have read here and there in many of your articles about the advantages of compounds over isolation but i think u should compile an article about it,its all scattered right now :)…
and secondly are quicker progression and higher growth hormone release due to heavier weight lifted the chief reasons of compounds adding more muscle mass than isolation?

By: dmitry

dmitry — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:44:51 +0000

Wolfie, thanks for posting…a good read.

By: Manny

Manny — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 22:48:59 +0000

Awesome article,have been reading evil’s blog for a while now, but this is the first time that I ever comment on any article. This piece is pure gold, there is a lot of myths and missinformation out there on fitness, an article like this backed by research and experience is what the BB comunity out there needs. Keep up the good work guys.

By: evilcyber

evilcyber — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:35:20 +0000

In reply to the_wolf. Yup, stay tuned tomorrow. You'll get some more Wolf and right after that on Monday as well :)

By: the_wolf

the_wolf — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:48:36 +0000

In reply to Owen. Well, guys, over half of Part II is written and edited, it should be scheduled for publication on Monday. You should see another article of mine in the meantime. :)

By: Owen

Owen — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:12:46 +0000

In reply to Arjun. This^

By: Soc

Soc — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:42:39 +0000

In reply to the_wolf. Thanks for the reply Wolf. I'll get started on that asap and see how it goes. Thanks..

By: the_wolf

the_wolf — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:13:40 +0000

In reply to Soc.

Deadlift is a special breed on any term – basically nothing we say regarding all the other compounds holds true for it. It’s such a brutal exercise that it makes its own rules.

I noted in the article that playing around with frequency is for non-beginner, although Part II will bring in some beginner-specific freqs as well. Therefore, if you’re new and have a deadlift well under your own bodyweight, you might actually train it thrice a week and get away with it (I remember my progress with DL in those early days to be extremely rapid without basically any residual fatigue).

If doing DLs thrice a week, I’d do the following schema – first workout, work up to a max set of 5 reps. Second, do 3×3 with 90% of first session weight, focus on form and explosiveness. On the last weekly session, do 2×5 or 3×5 with submaximal weights (80% estimated RM, just to consolidate the breakthrough that came on the first session). If this gets too much (Fri workout impairs the Mon one), dump the Fri workout.

Generally speaking, working up to a max set of five is a good approach for people who already have a strong DL, but aren’t pushing it nor specializing in it. Alternately, you can do 2 sets of 2-5, or three sets of 2-3. Total number of reps for deadlift is about 10 once a week or even less often. We’ll get to that in Part II.