The Case Against The Training Minimalist
Are you a Training Minimalist that thinks any workout plan that is more than the bare basics is too complicated? Here is a rant against this approach. You have been warned!
Intro
I have absolutely no interest in bodybuilding nutrition, whatsoever. I still know more of it than most trainees out there, but it just doesn’t spark my curiosity, thus I have no desire to think on it and play around or experiment.
I am a Nutrition Minimalist – I eat in such a way that my gains don’t suffer, but at the same time, want to stay in my comfort zone, which saves me from detailed calorie logs, watching how much saturated fat am I taking in this time of day at this meal with these other macronutrients, and how much unsaturated, am I having this percentage of complex carbs in this meal that is this much away from my workout and that much away from my sleep, etc.
Yet, I greatly admire people who can make page-long discussions on things related to nutrition: simply all the knowledge and understanding of the processes involved that are required for such feats of intellect. And I also admit that my approach and attitude is inferior, as I could probably get a nice edge if I were watching my nutrition more closely. But I don’t, I’m too lazy to do it, and I don’t run from that fact nor brag about it.
My passion is training. I study all things that relate to it in great detail, and, consequentially, know a few things on it that the training majority misses or misinterprets. And, naturally, my type has our own mirror images, the Training Minimalists, who, for some reason, almost universally consider that their stripped, barren, basics-only approach somehow outshines and outperforms the detailed one that I endorse.
Basics only?
The reasons why I disagree with such attitude are obvious and blatantly biased, but I believe that I have a couple of objective arguments that tilt the scales in my favor. This rant-masked-in-an-article will attempt to convey them as simply as possible, focusing on important things in general training. All the section titles below (except the “Analogy” one) represent true statements that any natural trainee ought to follow, and which Training Minimalists have absorbed well, but have, in this quest for simplicity, taken them to extremes which, in the end, don’t work as good as they could, if a more sensible approach were taken. We’ll take a look at where are the limits to interpretation for each of those, and where do facts and detail come into play.
So, to make it clear, (most) minimalist routines work better than majority of garbage thrown around in the fitness community. I just resent the notion that they differ in effectiveness from more elaborate routines by measly 1-5%. But enough talking, let’s start playing with real life examples.
An Analogy To Begin With
When faced with a Training Minimalist, I usually hear complaints that my work is overly complicated. Fair enough. But, in my eyes, this resembles complaining that modern airplanes are overly complicated, and thus unnecessary, since any hot air balloon can essentially do exactly what they can – fly you from one place to another. But the question arises – how far, how fast, and how bumpy will the ride be? Don’t take these questions as mere tools of the analogy: they translate very directly into training world.
Here are a few examples, all of which will be discussed in more detail later in the text. How far – most minimalist routines stop yielding results after the so-called “beginner strength plateau” is reached. They try to compensate by further reducing frequency and volume, which partly constitutes a step in the right direction, but they often take it too far so that overall volume becomes too low for further progressing, and they can’t increase it because they want as few compound movements as possible, which, again, they can’t recover from.
In for a ride?
They also miss out the individuality and specificity principles in the process. How fast – because of the aforementioned fallacies, besides a few others which we’ll mention, it usually takes for people who insist on bare-basic routines twice as long to reach advanced status and make any progress at that level. How bumpy will the ride be – I saw a minimalist routine recently that had bench press as its only pressing exercise, done for 10 sets in a workout. God save that man’s poor shoulders, because he obviously doesn’t give the slightest damn about them.
I could go on here, but it’s better if we start examining these problems in a more structured and detailed manner. So, onto good training principles taken to the extreme:
Compound Exercises Are The Staple Of Any Training
I needn’t explain this one, I hope. If you aren’t about moving weights on big compounds, you aren’t training properly and can’t hope to achieve your goals in muscle mass (if they’re above-average, of course), and Training Minimalists, luckily, know this well. The problem starts when they start viewing this simple principle as the be-all and end-all of weight training. In fact, it’s as fundamental as notion that you have to eat food in order to gain muscle. Because, simply, isolation-based (or isolation-filled) routines don’t work, at all. I’m not making this up, I’ve seen many times, on forums and in blog comments, statements like: “That routine is too complicated, just do compounds, and you’re covered.” In other words, do compounds, and you don’t have to think about anything else training-related. Right.
Compounds: No training should be without them
More on-topic, this tends to extent into rejections of any isolation work, whatsoever. I gave my view on this subject in this article series, and listed isolation exercises which I feel that should be done by almost any trainee, and which are rejected by the minimalist crowd because they’re non-compound and take away from the simplicity the strive for. (Notice that this story recurs in almost all discussions of this sort – real arguments are confronted by a principle that must be strictly adhered to. This kind of extremism is actually widespread in lifting community, e.g. the supposed necessity of eating multiple small, well-balanced meals that ends up being defended by all sorts of ludicrous statements, or the infamous group of HIT Jedis, who can’t think of any type of training that doesn’t include having 80% of your TUT done beyond failure.)
This story goes beyond these few isolations that I explained in the “Important Isolations” series, which I recommend doing for sake of balance and injury prevention. For in bodybuilding world, there’s another kind of balance that is very important: the so-called issue of “lagging bodyparts”, where some muscles could use additional work not because they lack of development that would disrupt joint stability and lead to injuries, but because it messes up one’s symmetry and aesthetic qualities of the physique. Here’s an example that I’ve seen numerous times – triceps lagging in chest-dominant pressers who focus on bench press alone (or devote an unproportional amount of time to it). Not that they lack triceps development at all, it’s just subpar compared to other parts of their body. This is most often a consequence of two things: poor M2M connection, and the fact that poor exercise utilization has lead to chest massively overpowering triceps and taking much of its work, even on exercises such as dips or CGBP. The solution – isolation work in hopeless cases, and a semi-isolation like California press for the rest.
The real issue with training minimalism (or any approach generally that seeks to base its operation on as few rules as possible) is its maladaptiveness. This first section gave an example of inferior physique results in intermediate trainees that result from kicking all isolation work altogether from a routine. Next stop: relying on a single exercise to get the job done and keep you injury-free.
Fewer Exercises Is Better Than A Lot Of Them
Doing a ton of exercises is unnecessary and takes away from training results by inserting too much overlap that impedes recovery. In other words, there’s no need for you to do flat, low-incline, and decline bench press in your routine. However, there is a limit under which you shouldn’t go. For example, I’d never go below doing 2 upper body pressing exercises in a routine – viable options are something like incline BP and parallel bar dips, or overhead press and decline DB press. Just observe the exercise choices and you’ll get a hint of what I’m aiming at. On the other side, the Minimalists usually have one press for entire training microcycle, and that’s almost universally flat BB BP.
When choosing exercises, you need to find the right balance between too much and too little
This time, for the sake of variety, I won’t pull out the physique argument, although it’s valid in this case as well. The issue here is more serious, and deals not with training muscles, but movements and planes of motion. Strengthening just one exercise, with its unique movement and range of motion, is a recipe for joint weakness and muscle imbalances. This gets slightly worse if you’re using fairly unnatural exercises, such as the bench press, in which your scapulae are pinned against the bench and can’t (nor shouldn’t) move, unlike basic pushups, in which you can protract them at the top of the movement. On top of this, you need to consider the danger of overuse injuries, which are common with all the problems which are over-reliant on a single movement patter (such as GVT).
There are, of course, more subtle things that actually show the difference between blunt and detailed in a clearer way. You see, the Minimalists stay away from complicated exercise names. “The less the better,” they say, and use vague names such as “curl”, “bench press”, “row”, referring, most of the time, to most basic variations of these movements. Let’s overlook the fact that “curling” can hit a lot more than your biceps alone, and focus on more direct consequences this generalized exercise naming approach has on training.
Firstly, you loose the necessary specificity and individuality components of training – there are no exercises that are good and safe for everyone in the same amount, and this becomes more evident and important as a trainee clears his beginning training levels. I can name dozens of row variations, and have an application for each of them based on the individual, but also because different combinations of exercises (different exercise choices in routine designing) require different variations to be used. For example, let’s say a trainee is doing trap bar squatlifts as his main leg movement, and doesn’t do other types of deadlifts. This pulls along picking a rowing variation that is closer to perfect horizontal pulling as possible, in order to add more necessary emphasis on upper-to-middle back. Likewise, if a trainee has improving his overhead press as his main goal, I surely aren’t putting incline presses in there as well, and, most likely, I’d shy away from any other type of barbell pressing as well, and focus on DB work. And so on, and so on…
A barbell benchpress is not equal to a dumbbell benchpress is not equal to an inclined benchpress is not equal to…
Second reason stems from the fact that subtle variations in exercise performance can yield different and/or better training results. E.g., doing triceps extension on decline bench leads to higher fiber recruitment in the triceps. Doing leg curls on a humpback bench reduces lower back involvement. Doing DB rows with an arc trajectory targets different part of the back than regular, up’n’down DB rows do. And I won’t even start talking about all the variations of squats and unilateral leg work you can do to correct quad imbalances and accommodate for differences in height, torso to limb length ratio, lower back vulnerability (or the lack of it), etc.
Low Volume Is Better Than High Volume
Mainstream bodybuilding routines are hypervolumized. They put in too many exercises for too many sets in (almost exclusively) higher rep range, all for the sake of “trashing the muscle properly.” Of course that this is a dumb recommendation, since neither does the muscle need to be trashed to grow (quite the contrary, chronic stimulus always beats acute stimulus), nor can a regular, natural trainee recover from that much volume. But, again, our Minimalist friends take this one too far as well, and rarely go beyond recommending 2 or 3 sets per exercise. And yes, it’s most often just number of sets, no mention of rep range or anything similar.
First of all, as I have said already, number of sets is a consequence of prescribed rep range, therefore it makes no sense to make it first, prioritized volume indicator (and even less to make it the only one, of course). Different rep ranges for different exercises call for different number of sets. Doing sumo deadlifts for triples in bodybuilding-oriented, submaximal routine calls for something like 10 sets to get adequate exercise volume. Front squats, done for sets of 5, call for 4 to 6 sets. Regular DB bench pressing for ten reps, three sets is fine. But then, lateral raises done for sets of 15? 2 sets at best.
Furthermore, less is not better – better is better. You can push past the beginner plateau by reducing volume, but it’s not the best solution. The proper way to do it is to restructure the workout, and, if necessary, define a periodization scheme that will alternate priority of movements during a cycle, and all of this is done without sacrificing volume at all, because, after all, you need some amount of volume to trigger hypertrophy (as I talked about here). This is the part where most discrepancies between oversimplified and more elaborate routines start occurring, since the former can’t provide their trainees with sufficient amount of work without jumping out of their abbreviated template.
Do you have to “trash” your muscles?
Have More Rest Days Than Training Days
You need to recover from your training. Being natural means you need more time to recover. Having suboptimal lifestyle conditions (work, family, stress…) means even less time to recover properly. But again there is a limit. Most trainees can train at least three times a week, some four, if that is necessary at all. If you can’t handle it, you don’t resort to training three times in ten days, as the Minimalists suggest, for the simple reason that it messes up your training frequency. Training so seldom throws you into maintenance mode at best. Some people can retain strength levels by having 10 days between same sessions, but most can’t, and experience de-training.
Again, the cure for ensuring consistent strength (and thus size) gains after the rapid beginner phase isn’t in mindlessly reducing the frequency to bare minimums, but choosing priorities and scaling down the amount of impact generated by major compounds. Adopting a more intermediate frequency plan, such as an upper/lower split done 4 DAW, is an example of such a solution. You can no longer train your legs thrice a week, but can do it twice, and to divide those days between squatting and deadlifting. This major work is complemented by accessory (still compound) work, which ensures enough training stimulus. So again, no need to hide into training so rarely that you workouts coincide with changing of seasons (“Oh, look, winter is coming, time to do my half a set of deadlifts.”)
Conclusion
This was a rant, and not an article, and like all rants, it was highly personalized and biased. I admit it, and can’t escape it. I actually wrote all of this not so much to prove my point, since I neither blame Training Minimalists nor encourage them to adopt my approach to training (I know that I’d hit someone with a barbell if they suggested me to start weighing my apples :P), but to have a collection of arguments to present when someone asks me why am I devoting so much time and effort to making training routines as elaborate and optimized as possible. But I also sincerely hope you learned something in the process. Stay well, train well! 🙂
Pictures courtesy of Johan Bichel Lindegaard, Benjamin J. DeLong, Eric Lim, Jon Clegg, “winnifredxoxo“, Jason Lengstorf and Channone Arif.
23 Comments
This article is merely stream-of-consciousness conjecture with no basis whatsoever. None of these claims and assumptions are backed up with any hard evidence.
Well, since you basically say that nothing here is correct nor true, it won’t be hard for you to pick an example (or many of them, but one is better to start with) for us to discuss. And while you’re at it, please define “hard evidence.” It’ll make it easier for us to continue debating.
And yes, it’s a rant, but I don’t think I sad anything that’s utterly wrong or that have made any “claims.” Again, feel free to point out something that we can work on. 🙂
“Mainstream bodybuilding routines are hypervolumized. They put in too many exercises for too many sets in (almost exclusively) higher rep range, all for the sake of “trashing the muscle properly.” Of course that this is a dumb recommendation, since neither does the muscle need to be trashed to grow (quite the contrary, chronic stimulus always beats acute stimulus), nor can a regular, natural trainee recover from that much volume.”
The problem with this statement is that it does not define “hypervolumized” in any quantifiable way, and does not back this up with any scientific evidence. The only basis for this statement is some feeling you have.
“Doing sumo deadlifts for triples in bodybuilding-oriented, submaximal routine calls for something like 10 sets to get adequate exercise volume. Front squats, done for sets of 5, call for 4 to 6 sets. Regular DB bench pressing for ten reps, three sets is fine. But then, lateral raises done for sets of 15? 2 sets at best.”
Again, has no basis whatsoever. You just made up those numbers because they feel right to you.
” The proper way to do it is to restructure the workout, and, if necessary, define a periodization scheme that will alternate priority of movements during a cycle, and all of this is done without sacrificing volume at all, because, after all, you need some amount of volume to trigger hypertrophy (as I talked about here)”
Blah blah blah. More broscience.
I can seriously go on for hours. Unless you learn to research scientific studies and actually cite your sources, I can’t take this nonsense seriously.
1. Google “bodybuilding routine”, or pick up a bodybuilding magazine. Almost every routine you’ll see is a 5-6 day split, having at, on average, 3-4 exercise per bodypart (regardless of its size), each done in the generic rep range of 8-12 reps. This is a hypervolumized routine, since it gives you a weekly total volume of over 200 reps on biceps alone (if we include all the other upper body pulls).
An example: http://www.collegebodybuilding.net/intermediate-muscle-building-routine.html (third result upon Googling “bodybuilding routine” – an Arnold routine was 4th)
If you think such routines are appropriate volume-wise, then… well, it’s not polite to make statements on whether someone trains or not over the Internet.
2. (Continuing onto 1st) These are examples of various training approaches. The first one is common with (bodybuilding) routines that focus on targeting fast-twitch fibers with enough volume, such as Chad Waterbury’s routines (Derek Charlebois has a similar article, if I recall correctly). Others are examples of more common schemes.
The main things around which they all revolve is the result acquired by Peterson and Rhea (2003, 2004, 2005), as well as those done by the Wernbom group (in 2007). The Prilepin’s table actually goes quite well with these results, although it’s meant for more strength and power oriented routines. In the end, these meta-studies concluded that 20-40 reps per exercise is about right, depending, of course, on the intensity used.
This, of course, goes well with results acquired by Martineau and Gardiner (2001, 2002) that say that both tension and the tension-time integral are
important in triggering the muscle-growth chemistry (meaning you need both intensity and volume, and that the two are slightly inversely proportional to each other).
3. I wrote thousands of words online on bodybuilding training. Read them all, or at least what I’ve published on this site, and you won’t be calling such statements bro-science.
Actually, while we’re here, what exactly is broscientific here? Your rapid beginner gains stop at one period, and what are you to do? Tell me something in those sentences that’s wrong, doesn’t work or there’s research saying otherwise. (The volume part is somewhat covered by research I cited above, but I have more, if you need it.)
I’m actually glad you came back (people rarely do), but still, please be a bit more specific. “More broscience” doesn’t exactly tell us what’s wrong with a statement.
Although I don’t have time to read them, I am glad you (retroactively) did some research and found some scientific studies that MAY support a few of your claims. Though keep in mind that there is a big difference between some correlation noted in a scientific study and an actually effective strategy that is practical in real life. But, its a start.
Now, you need to learn to incorporate these citations into your writing if you expect to be taken seriously. At least, by me. Probably most people won’t care.
I don’t understand why do you constantly try to demean me. I’m polite and friendly to everyone who shows interest in my articles, but my tolerance for constant poking has its limits.
I don’t do my research retroactively, and I never write anything that I don’t consider correct, either through the fact that I have verified it in some way (by reading studies, hearing anecdotes or trying it myself), or that I’ve been aware of it long enough to be able to decide if it’s worth putting into an article. I’ve known of all the studies I’ve cited for a long time (this can be seen from the fact that I mention some of them in my previous articles).
Looking at the body of work I’ve produced here can give you an idea that I have a fairly broad and detailed picture of weight training for natural bodybuilders. It worked for a lot of people so far, but I’m always open to criticism and debate (providing it’s presented in a civil and respectful manner). I would also love to see any writings of yours. It could, at least nominally, justify your coming here with such a cocky, superior attitude.
Also, you appear to be contradicting yourself – first you say that studies don’t matter a lot and aren’t practical, then tell me that the source of all my credibility should be citing peer-reviewed studies.
The truth is that it’s impossible to prioritize your sources in such a way, since studies tend to dispute each other’s findings, and are prone to numerous errors in drawing conclusion from gathered data, and anecdote can’t be taken as science for obvious reason. For this reason, I tend to balance the evidence from both, and try to find examples where they match, and then present this in my articles. Which, of course, is obvious to anyone who reads enough of them before making patronizing statements.
First, I apologize for hurting your pride, since I understand that writing this article was quite an ego trip for you and it can be painful to have your bubble of intellectual superiority burst into a thousand cinders.
And although I will not produce any writing for you, per your request, I freely admit that my bodybuilding experience is sorely limited. Although I am 10-20 pounds overweight and do have a small belly, I am nevertheless acutely aware of BS whenever it should cross my path.
Regarding this so called “contradiction”..there is none.
Most claims you make should be backed up by peer-reviewed studies, but at the same time it is your responsibility to ensure that you are not misinterpreting the results/conclusion of the study. A correlation found in a scientific paper does not suggest that everyone reshape their workout regimen.
My original point stands: your essay was written in stream-of-consciousness style and did not have any basis. I acknowledge that you retroactively gave some basis to it, which is better than nothing.
I am merely a concerned citizen who wishes to reduce the bloat of contradictory and naive nutrition/fitness information that is floating arout the ‘net. I am not claiming (necessarily) that your writing belongs in that category, but I must stress that it is critical for you to consistently cite scientific sources (in lieu of anecdotal evidence). Your ability to provide a few citations suggests that you are not totally hopeless, though frankly I do not have the time to read the articles in depth and assess whether you have drawn the correct conclusions from these papers.
@evilcyber: I did not ask for scientific sources. I merely stated that they are missing from his original post. I did not read them because frankly I don’t really care about this particular article- I merely attempted to stress the importance of substantiating your claims scientifically. And spite is also a minor factor.
PS: Your “keep-on movin” video is strange.
I don’t quite see the point in asking for scientific resources if you don’t even read them. Or do you require them of Wolf out of spite?
I’m still not sure if this guy is trying to be a troll, or really is that dense.
Things are actually much simpler than that – you’re an asshole. Now I’ll tell you what I should’ve told you right away:
1. You don’t know what stream of consciousness is. If you did, you’d be able to discern (belletristic) text written in this techniques from something that has a predefined structure (described in the introductory part) and which lays out arguments in a systematic manner. Or maybe it was too hard for you to follow, because
2. you have no clue on training whatsoever. I sometimes write things that are debatable, but you decided to pick on very basics. And, of course, all you can produce are accusations without arguments. You know, usually, when you call someone wrong, you point out what did he do wrong and provide evidence that he is, indeed, mistaken. “This is broscience and your speculation” just doesn’t cut it. Which brings us to
3. You don’t even lift. And I’m not telling this to pull out that horrible argument of “I’m bigger, stronger and leaner than you, STFU!” but because people who do train and who have seen results don’t question the stupidity of mainstream routines and whether or not you should restructure your workout once initial gains halt. Dude, I brought myself through the beginner plateau long time ago, and I’ve helped lots of people do it themselves by providing routines and other advice for training advancement. I know how to do this from both studies and experience. You don’t, since neither do you read studies, nor train at all / have been training long enough.
(To put all of this more frankly – you decided to start biting on things that nobody bites on, and for a good reason.)
Please, go be a concerned citizen somewhere else. Us around here have nothing to profit from, and have spent years already helping people by providing effective and unbiased advice. Of course, being able to discern truth from BS requires you to know a thing or two about the matter at hand, doesn’t it?
Anyways, I’m out of this discussion. If you’re a troll, fine, you’ve trolled us, if not, please learn how to behave among people.
Peace
How ironic, to both insist I learn to behave around others, shortly after calling me an asshole. My only complaint with you is that you are very young, uneducated, and with an inflated sense of self-importance imparted to you through your creation of a lame and arbitrary workout regimen. Its really not personal- you have a lot of growing up to do.
I’m not questioning that your workout routine is effective. I’m merely stating that a lot of what you write is nonsense. If you follow 3 key strategies for weightlifting and throw in 50 useless ones, you will still make progress.
That still doesn’t negate the fact that all you do around here is insult people without being able to refute anything that they’re saying. Calling you an asshole isn’t a matter of one’s maturity, it’s merely stating an obvious fact in order to show you that such hostile attitude will henceforth receive proper treatment.
Again, I understand that your lack of knowledge and experience in things related to lifting weights makes you unable to sift valuable information from useless one. It’s time for you to understand this yourself.
The article title caught my attention, since I consider myself a minimalist. However, after reading this rant, it turns out I wouldn’t fit into your definition of minimalist anyways.
My minimalism has more to deal with lack of equipment, and keeping as few exercises per session as possible. I guess that’s an issue one always gets into when dealing with labels, the term might mean different things to different people 😉
I have a very limited time window in which to train, and I do so at home. I have one bar and one set of dumbbell handles, so doing 10 different exercises, all requiring me to change weights, would end up being a lot of wasted time.
I realize my methods are not ideal, and being past the initial beginner gains, I’m pleased overall with my gains and no longer in any big rush.
I’m curious what your opinion would be about the minimal work required to continue making gains. I realize that is probably an individual question. I want to still be above the “maintenance” threshold you refer to, but have little interest in squeezing out every gram of muscle I could gain in a year. As long as I can get in another couple reps, or another pound, every couple weeks, I’m satisfied.
My work and research actually has two focal points: one is optimizing routines at the top level, in impossible, perfect conditions, and the other one is scaling down these findings and ideas to fit a normal lifestyle.
Minimalism in the way you describe it is an integral part of the latter process. We all want to get as much as we can out of routines that don’t take away a lot from our lives. And, in my opinion at least, having as much data on training as possible makes this work – knowing in which way to think and tweak your routine can quickly turn your minimized routine that limps into one that gives you steady gains, without investing any more time or effort into training.
What pisses me off is seeing people who go around saying: “Just do this generic crap, it works (better than / just like) all that detailed stuff.” when this is simply not true.
There’s nothing wrong with minimalist tendencies in routine design. I have them too, and they’re a desirable trait. The problem is imposing flat, minimalist perspective on training as a whole by trying to iron out all the details in an attempt to reduce it to as few, as simple rules as possible.
Regarding your question – yes, it’s totally individual. The abbreviated routine in the “21s”, or the basic bodyweight routine, are as stripped down as possible, but still (can) provide satisfactory gains.
Nice article. I am a minimalist to some extent 🙂 . Wolf, I cant wait for a review on westside barbell program… I can NOT wait 🙂
I had no intention of reviewing (original) Westside program, since there’s no point in utilizing it for bodybuilding purposes – it’d work, but there are too many elements that are unnecessary in bodybuilding routines, or that are even discouraged for safety reasons.
On the other hand, De Franco’s WS4SB is a terrific routine for bodybuilders in the early-to-mid intermediate stages. I have no major objections to using this routine, and had intended to mention it in the last article of the series, which will list routines that I really like and recommend people to try out. 🙂
Another great article… I seem to always ask but after reading your articles I am reminded of my own training (crazy I know) and the fact that is the best place to catch you; on your weightlifting option 2 routine, day B has “dumbbell rows”. I’ve blatantly disregarded this for the past few months, doing upright rows which I’ve hated and after reading through your post again I saw there were no such upright rows mentioned. So by dumbbell rows do you mean common bent-over dumbbell rows, or is there another variation I should know about? Two other related questions, I know you will probably advise against it but I usually finish your prescribed routines with an isolation, hammer curls after routine A, and lateral raises after routine B. Will these totally hinder my gains or are they OK? Second, I am progressing faster on dips than any exercise besides squats and dl. I do bench dips… shoulder impingement I know but I have not experienced any shoulder pain, probably a combination of good form and luck. I am building a parallel dip station next week but so far I have been consistently adding 5+ pounds each workout to feet inclined bench dips, are these naturally an easy exercise to progress on or are is the placement of my weight just not having any effect. If you managed to read all that, thanks!!
Thanks, Eric! 🙂
DB rows (unless specified with more attributes, such as, e.g., “arc DB rows”, or “bilateral bent-over DB rows”) are a unilateral exercise in which one hand is braced against a bench (or you have your knee on the bench as well), and you row the DB basically any way you feel comfortable with. Generally, the motion would be almost the same as if you were using a BB – you wouldn’t be rowing to the hip, or straight to the chest, but somewhere in between.
Doing isolations at the end – if you do it because you want pump or satisfaction, and do it for less than 20 total reps, it doesn’t matter that much (it could, but it probably won’t hinder your gains in any way).
Bench dips are (supposed to be) a ridiculously easy exercise, especially if you are (like most people), limiting your ROM to something like 4″. IMO, you actually shouldn’t go deeper than that, and I recommend against doing this exercise, but since you’re going to have a dipping station soon, there’s no problem there as well.
It’s easy for anyone in their early 20’s to claim what works for them. If you don’t changing some of your opinions and things are not done “due to laziness”, I would be surprised that your currently achievement of fitness will continue at age of 30 and 40’s. Just an opinion for an old man.
I’m not exactly sure what are you trying to get at. Is it the fact that I said I’m too lazy to weigh my apples (this is the only part of the article where the word “lazy” was used)?
If so, yes, I’m aware that this attitude is detrimental, and the example was used purely to make an intro for the article and say that I understand minimalism as such, but don’t understand people who think that it produces equal or even superior results.
Again, if you meant this in a different line, please say so.
I do a handful of lifts a week. Focusing on strength. This is all one needs to do. then, if you feel a bodypart is lagging, traps for example, you can just throw in some isolation for a couple weeks to “peak” the muscle out a bit. Doing isolation moves week in and week out is pointless. Work your heart out on curling and deadlifting for a year. Now tell me, how much more weight can you lift in the curl, maybe 10lbs? How much muscle have you gained? Compare to your deadlift numbers.
Do you define yourself as a strength trainee or a bodybuilder? Or something in between? This makes a lot of difference since different goals presume different training strategies, hence saying “This is all one needs to do.” makes no sense since it’s too generalized. Regardless, I still stand by my point that a refined approach always trumps the blunt one.
I don’t agree that doing an exercise (isolation or compound) for very short periods of time yields any different results than not doing it at all when hypertrophy gains are concerned – i.e., if you’re going to do an exercise, do it properly. Otherwise, you don’t have time to make noticeable gains (both strength and, consequentially, mass-wise). Traps, due to their enormous potential for rapid hypertrophy, might be an exception to that rule.
I also don’t see the point of the drastic comparison between potential progression of curls and deadlifts, both because it’s obvious to anyone who trains and because, well, I just don’t see its point inside this article. I can personally deadlift 450 for reps while weighing under 200 lbs at less than 10% BF, and it’s pretty clear from my work which exercises I deem worthy of effort. If I failed to deliver the notion that I consider strength gains on big compound to be the most important thing for one’s progress, please inform me so I’ll do a better job next time. 🙂
I guess I consider myself a minimalist. I did a FBW 3x a week with many exercises and as my intensity increased I reduced the exercises and I’m now doing 4-5 per workout session. My frequency is still the same, I just lowered my volume.
However I noticed that my legs now need more than 48h of rest, and reading this article was very helpfull. A Upper lower split done 4DAW seems more appropriate, or even a push pull legs split.
Thank you for teaching me stuff. Whenever I want to learn something usefull I read one of your articles, and I always end up with more knowledge.