PDA

View Full Version : Changing up exercises



clsupnorth
05-27-2006, 02:09 AM
I realized today that I've basically been doing the same routine for almost 3 months (4 day upper/lower split). There are a couple different things I changed, but not much. I did not realize the weeks had passed so quickly.

So then a few weeks ago I started cutting, and as per discussions on here, I cut back my weight workouts by 2/3.

Is it wise to change up the exercises now? Or should I wait until I'm done this phase? Or maybe change 1 or 2 every couple weeks?
I just kind of feel like even though I should only be 'maintaining' my existing muscle, I still feel like I'm stagnating with using the same moves.

Erik
05-27-2006, 02:10 AM
Depends.

I'd keep the big core movements in there in some capacity. Have some type of squat, some type of bench, etc., etc.

quickie
05-27-2006, 02:20 AM
You don't have to cut your weights by 2/3- it's just that I suppose you CAN.

Somebody might be able to confirm this, but I think you may be able to keep your volume as high as possible provided you are able to maintain or increase the weights.

Erik
05-27-2006, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by quickie@May 26 2006, 10:20 PM
You don't have to cut your weights by 2/3- it's just that I suppose you CAN.

Somebody might be able to confirm this, but I think you may be able to keep your volume as high as possible provided you are able to maintain or increase the weights.
Why do that though when the goal of dieting is to keep as much muscle as possible? Higher volume is done with the intent of growing; if you're in an energy state not conducive to that, why do it? You don't have the resources to recover as well.

quickie
05-27-2006, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Thunder+May 27 2006, 02:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunder @ May 27 2006, 02:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-quickie@May 26 2006, 10:20 PM
You don&#39;t have to cut your weights by 2/3- it&#39;s just that I suppose you CAN.

Somebody might be able to confirm this, but I think you may be able to keep your volume as high as possible provided you are able to maintain or increase the weights.
Why do that though when the goal of dieting is to keep as much muscle as possible? Higher volume is done with the intent of growing; if you&#39;re in an energy state not conducive to that, why do it? You don&#39;t have the resources to recover as well. [/b][/quote]
Provided you ARE recovering though, why would it be a problem? :unsure:

I always thought that 2/3 number was sort of based on an estimation.

Erik
05-27-2006, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by quickie+May 26 2006, 10:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (quickie @ May 26 2006, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Thunder@May 27 2006, 02:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-quickie@May 26 2006, 10:20 PM
You don&#39;t have to cut your weights by 2/3- it&#39;s just that I suppose you CAN.

Somebody might be able to confirm this, but I think you may be able to keep your volume as high as possible provided you are able to maintain or increase the weights.
Why do that though when the goal of dieting is to keep as much muscle as possible? Higher volume is done with the intent of growing; if you&#39;re in an energy state not conducive to that, why do it? You don&#39;t have the resources to recover as well.
Provided you ARE recovering though, why would it be a problem? :unsure:

I always thought that 2/3 number was sort of based on an estimation. [/b][/quote]
How are you measuring long term recovery? Soreness?

Too much volume in a deficit WILL catch you. It&#39;s not a matter of if ...

It&#39;s based on some research if memory serves correctly. PMDL would know for sure.

quickie
05-27-2006, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Thunder+May 27 2006, 02:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunder @ May 27 2006, 02:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by quickie@May 26 2006, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Thunder@May 27 2006, 02:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-quickie@May 26 2006, 10:20 PM
You don&#39;t have to cut your weights by 2/3- it&#39;s just that I suppose you CAN.

Somebody might be able to confirm this, but I think you may be able to keep your volume as high as possible provided you are able to maintain or increase the weights.
Why do that though when the goal of dieting is to keep as much muscle as possible? Higher volume is done with the intent of growing; if you&#39;re in an energy state not conducive to that, why do it? You don&#39;t have the resources to recover as well.
Provided you ARE recovering though, why would it be a problem? :unsure:

I always thought that 2/3 number was sort of based on an estimation.
How are you measuring long term recovery? Soreness?

Too much volume in a deficit WILL catch you. It&#39;s not a matter of if ...

It&#39;s based on some research if memory serves correctly. PMDL would know for sure. [/b][/quote]
I said recovery was maintaining or increasing teh weights. :cool:

Erik
05-27-2006, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by quickie+May 26 2006, 10:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (quickie &#064; May 26 2006, 10:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Thunder@May 27 2006, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by quickie@May 26 2006, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Thunder@May 27 2006, 02:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-quickie@May 26 2006, 10:20 PM
You don&#39;t have to cut your weights by 2/3- it&#39;s just that I suppose you CAN.

Somebody might be able to confirm this, but I think you may be able to keep your volume as high as possible provided you are able to maintain or increase the weights.
Why do that though when the goal of dieting is to keep as much muscle as possible? Higher volume is done with the intent of growing; if you&#39;re in an energy state not conducive to that, why do it? You don&#39;t have the resources to recover as well.
Provided you ARE recovering though, why would it be a problem? :unsure:

I always thought that 2/3 number was sort of based on an estimation.
How are you measuring long term recovery? Soreness?

Too much volume in a deficit WILL catch you. It&#39;s not a matter of if ...

It&#39;s based on some research if memory serves correctly. PMDL would know for sure.
I said recovery was maintaining or increasing teh weights. :cool: [/b][/quote]
Where&#39;d you say that?

Again, what&#39;s the point though? Why do more for the same effect? It&#39;s the same with people and cardio - why do more when you don&#39;t have to?

Leah
05-27-2006, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Thunder+May 26 2006, 10:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunder @ May 26 2006, 10:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by quickie@May 26 2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Thunder@May 27 2006, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by quickie@May 26 2006, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Thunder@May 27 2006, 02:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-quickie@May 26 2006, 10:20 PM
You don&#39;t have to cut your weights by 2/3- it&#39;s just that I suppose you CAN.

Somebody might be able to confirm this, but I think you may be able to keep your volume as high as possible provided you are able to maintain or increase the weights.
Why do that though when the goal of dieting is to keep as much muscle as possible? Higher volume is done with the intent of growing; if you&#39;re in an energy state not conducive to that, why do it? You don&#39;t have the resources to recover as well.
Provided you ARE recovering though, why would it be a problem? :unsure:

I always thought that 2/3 number was sort of based on an estimation.
How are you measuring long term recovery? Soreness?

Too much volume in a deficit WILL catch you. It&#39;s not a matter of if ...

It&#39;s based on some research if memory serves correctly. PMDL would know for sure.
I said recovery was maintaining or increasing teh weights. :cool:
Where&#39;d you say that?
[/b][/quote]
In the first quote :p

quickie
05-27-2006, 02:33 AM
"I think you may be able to keep your volume as high as possible provided you are able to maintain or increase the weights."

I was reading something Lyle wrote about him saying you can drop volume off as needed based on fatigue and recovery rather than just cutting it by 2/3.

Erik
05-27-2006, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by Leah@May 26 2006, 10:32 PM
In the first quote :p
Gee, how ironic.

Thanks.

Erik
05-27-2006, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by quickie@May 26 2006, 10:33 PM
"I think you may be able to keep your volume as high as possible provided you are able to maintain or increase the weights."

I was reading something Lyle wrote about him saying you can drop volume off as needed based on fatigue and recovery rather than just cutting it by 2/3.
I agree with that.

I don&#39;t cut by 2/3; but I am conscious of the fact that I need to reduce it from my normal training. I just do &#39;less&#39;. Under normal conditions, my entire goal with dieting is to not lose strength. I don&#39;t need lots of volume to be able to do that, and too much will definitely be contraindicated.

I just don&#39;t like the mind set of doing as much as you can tolerate, when there aren&#39;t really any additional benefits to doing so.

Leah
05-27-2006, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by Thunder@May 26 2006, 10:57 PM
Gee, how ironic.

Thanks.
:unsure:

clsupnorth
05-27-2006, 05:03 AM
Ok, well, with all that said.... ;)

I have found that generally, the 2/3 reduction has worked well for me. On some things, I do a couple more sets if I feel like it, or throw in an additional exercise or two. I don&#39;t consider it carved in stone, but it has been a good guideline.

So, back to Thunder&#39;s 1st reply.... I still want to keep my setup pretty much the same as it is (I really love the 4 way split). So it shouldn&#39;t be a problem whatsoever to change romanian deadlifts to regular deadlifts, for example? I was concerned that the slight change in positioning and such would stimulate for growth, but now that I think about it, that doesn&#39;t make any sense, since I&#39;d have to be eating more and training harder for that to happen.
Hmmm... I think I just answered my own question.

Leah
05-27-2006, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by clsupnorth@May 27 2006, 01:03 AM
Ok, well, with all that said.... ;)

I have found that generally, the 2/3 reduction has worked well for me. On some things, I do a couple more sets if I feel like it, or throw in an additional exercise or two. I don&#39;t consider it carved in stone, but it has been a good guideline.

So, back to Thunder&#39;s 1st reply.... I still want to keep my setup pretty much the same as it is (I really love the 4 way split). So it shouldn&#39;t be a problem whatsoever to change romanian deadlifts to regular deadlifts, for example? I was concerned that the slight change in positioning and such would stimulate for growth, but now that I think about it, that doesn&#39;t make any sense, since I&#39;d have to be eating more and training harder for that to happen.
Hmmm... I think I just answered my own question.
huh? you don&#39;t want to grow?

Erik
05-27-2006, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Leah+May 27 2006, 09:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leah @ May 27 2006, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clsupnorth@May 27 2006, 01:03 AM
Ok, well, with all that said.... ;)

I have found that generally, the 2/3 reduction has worked well for me. On some things, I do a couple more sets if I feel like it, or throw in an additional exercise or two. I don&#39;t consider it carved in stone, but it has been a good guideline.

So, back to Thunder&#39;s 1st reply.... I still want to keep my setup pretty much the same as it is (I really love the 4 way split). So it shouldn&#39;t be a problem whatsoever to change romanian deadlifts to regular deadlifts, for example? I was concerned that the slight change in positioning and such would stimulate for growth, but now that I think about it, that doesn&#39;t make any sense, since I&#39;d have to be eating more and training harder for that to happen.
Hmmm... I think I just answered my own question.
huh? you don&#39;t want to grow? [/b][/quote]
If she&#39;s dieting, how much is she going to grow?

Leah
05-27-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Thunder+May 27 2006, 10:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunder @ May 27 2006, 10:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Leah@May 27 2006, 09:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-clsupnorth@May 27 2006, 01:03 AM
Ok, well, with all that said.... ;)

I have found that generally, the 2/3 reduction has worked well for me. On some things, I do a couple more sets if I feel like it, or throw in an additional exercise or two. I don&#39;t consider it carved in stone, but it has been a good guideline.

So, back to Thunder&#39;s 1st reply.... I still want to keep my setup pretty much the same as it is (I really love the 4 way split). So it shouldn&#39;t be a problem whatsoever to change romanian deadlifts to regular deadlifts, for example? I was concerned that the slight change in positioning and such would stimulate for growth, but now that I think about it, that doesn&#39;t make any sense, since I&#39;d have to be eating more and training harder for that to happen.
Hmmm... I think I just answered my own question.
huh? you don&#39;t want to grow?
If she&#39;s dieting, how much is she going to grow? [/b][/quote]
I get that...she said she was concerned that she would though...

clsupnorth
05-27-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Leah+May 27 2006, 09:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leah &#064; May 27 2006, 09:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Thunder@May 27 2006, 10:19 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Leah@May 27 2006, 09:41 AM

huh? you don&#39;t want to grow?
If she&#39;s dieting, how much is she going to grow?
I get that...she said she was concerned that she would though...[/b][/quote]
OF COURSE I WANNA GROW&#33;&#33;&#33; You&#39;re my idol, remember, Leah? :p
If it was possible to grow and diet, then by all means, sure. But I guess diet first, add more growth later.

(I can&#39;t WAIT to finish this stupid dieting phase... :mad: )