Super-dooper Compensation Training

ThinkProgress

Bit of strange thread title, but bare with me...

All training adaptations are broadly defined as supercompensation. (ie: you create damage/fatigue, and then when fully recovered your body should be slightly above the baseline you started at)

But this term is often also used to describe a period of training where you increase duration, intensity, frequency - or indeed all three - dramatically above your regular workouts, in order to "shock" your body over a plateau.

Some people advocate changing the type of workout as a way of creating a new stimuli... But I think the real benefits come from altering duration/intensity/frequency rather than altering the type or style.

I do a lot of experimenting in this regard, and it requires you to really listen to your body. Some times it feels like I'm getting right, other times the results are less impressive...

Does anyone else do any training like this?

I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts and experiences on the subject. (Regardless of your chosen sport or discipline - I think it's something that's applicable to everyone really)

colossus-x

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Bit of strange thread title, but bare with me...

Some people advocate changing the type of workout as a way of creating a new stimuli... But I think the real benefits come from altering duration/intensity/frequency rather than altering the type or style.

I don't feel myself is a question of type of workout vs altering duration/intensity/frequency. Either one is still a variation and you can combine the two. ie you can still change d/i/f within the type of workout. It would appear that the results gained from styles of workout are specific to the individual.

I feel the real benefit of mixing it for me is to keep me focused mentally and prevents me from getting bored.

Alf Veedersane

I really listen to my body but it speaks in Spanish and no hablo Español

Transform

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Bit of strange thread title, but bare with me...

All training adaptations are broadly defined as supercompensation. (ie: you create damage/fatigue, and then when fully recovered your body should be slightly above the baseline you started at)

But this term is often also used to describe a period of training where you increase duration, intensity, frequency - or indeed all three - dramatically above your regular workouts, in order to "shock" your body over a plateau.

Some people advocate changing the type of workout as a way of creating a new stimuli... But I think the real benefits come from altering duration/intensity/frequency rather than altering the type or style.

I do a lot of experimenting in this regard, and it requires you to really listen to your body. Some times it feels like I'm getting right, other times the results are less impressive...

Does anyone else do any training like this?

I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts and experiences on the subject. (Regardless of your chosen sport or discipline - I think it's something that's applicable to everyone really)

christain T has written about this topic on T nation so check him out.

to be honest most of the constant variation is not needed until you hit a certain level of training e.g. double body weight squat and deadlift, weighted chins and dips etc

I do crossfit so there is plenty of variation all the time to provided the right stimulus but the hardest thing is the constant management of fatigue.

The best training program offers you the greatest amount of adaptation with the least amount of recoverability, cant remember who said that but its bang on.

ThinkProgress

Transform wrote: »

christain T has written about this topic on T nation so check him out.

to be honest most of the constant variation is not needed until you hit a certain level of training e.g. double body weight squat and deadlift, weighted chins and dips etc

I do crossfit so there is plenty of variation all the time to provided the right stimulus but the hardest thing is the constant management of fatigue.

The best training program offers you the greatest amount of adaptation with the least amount of recoverability, cant remember who said that but its bang on.

Thanks I'll check that out.

Yea recovery is the tricky part. I find HIIT training has huge benefits, but if you overdo it you dig a hole that's hard to get out of sometimes.

Transform

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Thanks I'll check that out.

Yea recovery is the tricky part. I find HIIT training has huge benefits, but if you overdo it you dig a hole that's hard to get out of sometimes.

big time its a big hole and often people reach burnout only when they realise the only time they have more energy is in training sessions - thats a huge issue then.

Dtp1979

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I really listen to my body but it speaks in Spanish and no hablo Español

Que?

ThinkProgress

Transform wrote: »

big time its a big hole and often people reach burnout only when they realise the only time they have more energy is in training sessions - thats a huge issue then.

Yeah I've experienced a bit of that a few years ago - not fun. But you learn big lessons from it.

Hanley

Simple training variables:
sets
reps
rest period
weight
tempo (time under tension)
edit: frequency

Complex training variables:
"advanced" methods (superset, triset, drop set, rest / pause, pre and post fatigue etc etc)
"program" change (GVT to GBC to PL to BB etc etc)

"daily undulating" principles (some days heavy, some days light etc)

The only one people really look at is the bolded one when looking for "muscle confusion" or any of that BS.

Really simply...

Go do:

A) Front Squat 4x6, rest 240s
Weighted Chin Up 4x6, rest 240s

..and then do:

A1) Front Squat 4x6 @ 4010, rest 10s
A2) Weighted Chin Up 4x6 @4010, rest 190s

..and come back and tell me how different they felt, and the different adaptive response you'd expect.

The latter will be significantly lighter, but much, much harder.

Mellor

Generally, when somebody is talking about "shocking the body" they are spouting nonsense.

Sure, periods of differing stimulus can prove results, especially in advanced athletes. But the reasons are genuine physical adaptations rather than the body requiring a surprise.

Transform

Mellor wrote: »

Generally, when somebody is talking about "shocking the body" they are spouting nonsense.

Sure, periods of differing stimulus can prove results, especially in advanced athletes. But the reasons are genuine physical adaptations rather than the body requiring a surprise.

totally agree and nail on head.

I all my years training clients EVERYONE that talks about "shocking the body" was really using it as a deflection for not wanting to address more important areas e.g. poor (they're fat) or insufficient nutrition (skinny clean eaters), terrible mobility, basics of training not nailed down and conditioning sucks.

EVERY session should offer some degree of 'shock' but that should take the entire program into consideration ortherwise it all becomes an exercise of the week

ThinkProgress

Mellor wrote: »

Generally, when somebody is talking about "shocking the body" they are spouting nonsense.

Sure, periods of differing stimulus can prove results, especially in advanced athletes. But the reasons are genuine physical adaptations rather than the body requiring a surprise.

I agree with this in the sense that I don't think you need to cross train in order to reach a higher level. Different types of workouts can give a more well rounded fitness, but not necessarily higher per say.

I don't agree with the idea that our bodies get used to certain types of training and subsequently stop responding as well. I've never bought into that theory...

But lets say most of your workouts you try to leave a bit in the tank - in terms of effort. (This is something I would do quite a bit, because I train 6 days a week most weeks)

But every now an then I'll throw in some max effort workouts - like steep hill sprints with a weighted vest for example - near the end of the week. Then the next week(s) I'll return to my regular intensity workouts....

I've felt some benefits to doing this. But it's difficult to know for sure sometimes.

I've started wearing a heart rate monitor now, so I can maybe get a better picture of wether there is anything tangible to this... Or wether it's just in my head.

Transform

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I agree with this in the sense that I don't think you need to cross train in order to reach a higher level. Different types of workouts can give a more well rounded fitness, but not necessarily higher per say.

I don't agree with the idea that our bodies get used to certain types of training and subsequently stop responding as well. I've never bought into that theory...

But lets say most of your workouts you try to leave a bit in the tank - in terms of effort. (This is something I would do quite a bit, because I train 6 days a week most weeks)

But every now an then I'll throw in some max effort workouts - like steep hill sprints with a weighted vest for example - near the end of the week. Then the next week(s) I'll return to my regular intensity workouts....

I've felt some benefits to doing this. But it's difficult to know for sure sometimes.

I've started wearing a heart rate monitor now, so I can maybe get a better picture of wether there is anything tangible to this... Or wether it's just in my head.

I just use and program - how I/they physically look, body fat tests, test metcons and strength tests for 1rep or reps as a means of measuring, not much guesswork there