Supercompensation Explained

**Warrior** · 03-22-2003, 02:25 AM

For those not sure what supercompensation is - I did up a quick gif showing the curve. Everyone's curve is different, depending on ability to recover, diet, sleep, so forth. But when you keep all those variables consistent you can find the point where you curve peaks and keep reaching for a genetic potential with continuous gains.

Aerobic/cardiovascular training has a shorter curve (requiring less rest) then anerobic strength or hypertrophy training.

How the use of AAS effects this curve - I am not sure. But I am pretty convinced that overcompensation becomes increased and the curve shortens at the I and II stages - increaseing stage III which would result in a longer time to return to normal homeostatis (stage IV).

**jammergsxr** · 03-22-2003, 02:50 AM

So would this be the reason I can't drag my sorry-ass out of bed everymorning cuz I feel like I was hit by a mack truck when I'm on cycle?

**painintheazz** · 03-22-2003, 03:12 AM

Nice, it seems like from the way the curve sloops it would make more sense to try to overtrain a little then undertrain, then take a week off say every 3 months to catch up.

Pain

**Warrior** · 03-22-2003, 02:09 PM

jammergsxr - this is how to find the correct training frequency to make every workout a gain. If you are feeling like crap the day you return to the gym - you are probably retraining in stage II and not III... make sense? On the otherside - too little training will cause you to just start back where you began, back at normal baseline levels (stage IV's return to normal homeostatis)...

Basically when looking at the curve in an anaerobic sense, think of it like this:

Stage I: You go to the gym and balls out on biceps. This creates a stimulus followed by a fatique effect that drops your performance ability... if you went back a couple hours and tried to work them again you would feel sluggish and motivation would be low... and the muscle would not be recovered.

Stage II: At this point, your body bgeins to repair and return to normal homeostatis. It begins recovery. If you lift hard and heavy everyday with full intensity but not enough rest, you will continuely be stuck at this stage... AKA, no progress.

Stage III: This is where the difference happens. The system will overcompensate to allow more ATP/CP stores for greater energy and increased performance. Hitting the highest peak of this supercompensation is the goal.

Stage IV: But, if you decide to take some time off and no longer give your system the stimulus to keep the gains - it will return to normal levels and detraining begins.

painintheazz - this is the exact curve... with a little fooling around in Adobe Illustrator... so yes, you would have more compenstion after the peak then before. Before you are riding real close to stage II, and overtraining is more likely than any overcompensation.

**Warrior** · 03-22-2003, 09:31 PM

My ideas on supercompensation on gear... basically Stage I and II become shorter, stages III and IV longer. The fatique curve becomes less with a greater level of overcompensation from a greater anabolic environment.

Of course the degree of how much the curve is effected depends on the amount and type of gear used... BUT for reasonable use - fatigue is still a concern and overtraining on gear possible, but less likely.

**jammergsxr** · 03-22-2003, 09:55 PM

I see what your saying,thanks for the info.

**CrimsonTide** · 03-31-2003, 04:12 PM

This might be a little off topic but I guess since you are discussing one of Bompa's theories I will ask a question on some of his others. Just picked up Serious Strength Training by Bompa, Di Pasquale, & Cornacchia. I'm quickly becoming a fan of his as I read more but I gotta wonder about working each muscle group more than once a week as advocated by some of the sample programs in the book. I know you have read his stuff extensively Warrior (yeah I've been trolling this board for quite some time now) so maybe you have some insight? Anyone tried his programs? I know everyone's body responds differently but I'm still skeptical considering this pretty much flies in the face of today's "work each muscle group just once a week" mindset.

**Warrior** · 03-31-2003, 08:37 PM

Yeah - I'd say Bompa and Poliquin are my top two favorite authors - great researchers and outstanding writers. Very good info from both.

You bring up the Mondays-is-Chest-Day-And-Wednesday-is-Arms-Day training routine. This routine has many flaws in it... I'll list some reasons why I don't like this idea...

Rest Days: I train by training days and advocate this to others. By setting a specific week day aside for one or a group of bodyparts limits your routine. What happens if you are ill? What if sleep patterns have been off balance or rest otherwise effected? What if you simply can not go to the gym? Do you skip that day? No... you add a rest day or two for added recovery every now and then (or to adhere to external commitments) and pick up at the next training day.

Sooo... instead of thinking in terms of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, ... I advocate Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, .... none of which have to fall on any particular day of the week.

Training Experience: This is the most abused type of structuring a workout for entry level bodybuiders. So many times you hear at the gym, "What are you working today?" - "Back...". And the guy that answered was a soaking wet 170lbs! Folks new to weight training DO NOT need 7 days rest for their Back (working it every Monday for example) - especially not for smaller bodyparts like Biceps or those with greater recovery ability. I blame this understanding on weight training on magazine pubs with the frequently published magic solution workout "of the pros" - the Keep-It-Simple-Stupid Workout...

Those who need 7 days recovery for a muscle group are more experienced and thus use these types of splits... newbies will find themselves on the short end of supercompensation leading to slow gains or those that come easy being more from a CNS development to their new lifestyle - learning how to recruit their muscles to lift weights.

As you get bigger the stress you put on your body becomes more pronounced. Lifting 315lbs for 10 puts more stress on your entire system than when you did 135lbs for 10. Sisco and Little wrote a great phrase in their Power Factor Training book, "Every workout is a kidney workout." Your muscles grow but internal organs and many other variables associated with filtering metabolic wastes and handling this stress do not.

When you begin to lift heavy with maximum intensity - you simply need more rest days for that bodypart. When you are new and the load is light - less rest is needed and lower body-upper body type splits can be most productive for many. On that note, you also have to remember this is very indivdual and dependent on a person's ability to recover.

Muscle Group Size and Fiber Type: Not all muscle groups are created equal. They each have a different ration of fast-twitch/slow-twitch and ability to recovery and adapt to training. Typically the largest bodyparts like Quadriceps will require the most rest. Calves, Abs, Delts, ... will recover very fast. So why would give them the same recovery days? You shouldn't. Give them X amount of training days for recovery based on how hard you worked it (intensity level), as well as how you felt during the workout (is overall overtriaing becoming a problem?)...

The nitty gritty: The bottome line is to find what keeps you on the top portion of the supercompensation curve. If your training program has stalled - you may have been either training incorrectly or you simply outgrew a previous training split.

**CrimsonTide** · 04-01-2003, 08:42 AM

/nod gotta agree with most of your reply however I'm not quite sure about what you said:

As you get bigger the stress you put on your body becomes more pronounced. Lifting 315lbs for 10 puts more stress on your entire system than when you did 135lbs for 10.

Seems to me that 135lbs as a beginner would put just as much stress, if not more, on your system then lifting 315 as a more experienced lifter. The amount of stress would be relative to your strenth ie. if you take someone that can only lift 135 versus someone that can lift 315, the "amount" of stress produced would be the same as each person is lifting (to them) a lot of weight. It almost seems to be the complete opposite: as you gain experience lifting, your body theorectically learns to tolerate the stress more than when you first start out. Of course this doesn't take into account that as you begin lifting you aren't actually building muscle but instead are acclimating your system to lifting. I guess then you also have to take into account limiting factors like strength of tendons/stabilizing muscles/etc. I guess what I'm trying to say that going "balls to the wall" as a relatively inexperienced lifter wouldn't seem to produce that much less stress than going "balls to the wall" as an experienced lifter.

As far as allowing different muscles varying rest times I think you are right on. I've also read Hatfield's: Harcore Bodybuilding, A Scientific Approach. Some of his workout routines however seem to be a bit extreme. Just wondering if you have ever tried any of his routines and if so did you experience good results? Maybe I'm wrong but wouldn't the volume of training that he advocates put one in danger of seriously overtraining (perhaps not specific muscles but overall as the is so much volume on training days)?

**compwhiz16** · 04-01-2003, 12:36 PM

Good article there Warrior. You always do seem to find some good info. Peace...

**Warrior** · 04-01-2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by CrimsonTide
/nod gotta agree with most of your reply however I'm not quite sure about what you said: Seems to me that 135lbs as a beginner would put just as much stress, if not more, on your system then lifting 315 as a more experienced lifter. The amount of stress would be relative to your strenth ie. if you take someone that can only lift 135 versus someone that can lift 315, the "amount" of stress produced would be the same as each person is lifting (to them) a lot of weight. It almost seems to be the complete opposite: as you gain experience lifting, your body theorectically learns to tolerate the stress more than when you first start out. Of course this doesn't take into account that as you begin lifting you aren't actually building muscle but instead are acclimating your system to lifting. I guess then you also have to take into account limiting factors like strength of tendons/stabilizing muscles/etc. I guess what I'm trying to say that going "balls to the wall" as a relatively inexperienced lifter wouldn't seem to produce that much less stress than going "balls to the wall" as an experienced lifter.

When you first start out - you are not going to tear a muscle or put significant stress on you system... as compared to a powerlifter going for limit strength or an advanced bodybuilder using advanced principles to really fatique a muscle group. This can be seen by metabolic waste that develops... and possibly even through some change in liver values. There is a lot to support this. Beginners should NOT go "balls to the wall" - they should train at their level and use compound movements as their bread and butter routines.

Keep in mind, new trainees can become overtrained very easily by working above their experience level and what their personal genetics allow for supercompensation - how many people do you see begin a routine only to drop it and never come back? Or at least not for months later - they overtrained themselves everytime and thus never really get anywhere... therefore I am not advocating intense splits for this category... splits that would put huge stress on their system. Primary focus should be learning to recruit muscle groups by developing the mind-muscle connection, strengthen tendons and ligaments, as well as learn to make other lifestyle changes while focusing on goals... or what becomes more like personal hygiene...

If you don't believe that an experienced trainee puts more stress on their system than an inexperienced one - that's your opinion, but I am on the side that deffinitly does. What you learn to tollerate more than anything is the ability to handle lactate build ups (putting up with the the burn is more motivational than physical adaption), while developing a CNS connection (a solid mind-muscle connection for fluid movements). People are shakey in the beginning because of two main reasons - undeveloped joiints and lack of how to actually recruit a muscle group properly.

**Warrior** · 04-01-2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by CrimsonTide
As far as allowing different muscles varying rest times I think you are right on. I've also read Hatfield's: Harcore Bodybuilding, A Scientific Approach. Some of his workout routines however seem to be a bit extreme. Just wondering if you have ever tried any of his routines and if so did you experience good results? Maybe I'm wrong but wouldn't the volume of training that he advocates put one in danger of seriously overtraining (perhaps not specific muscles but overall as the is so much volume on training days)?

Hatfields ideas are like many others - he has some solid info that you can tweak to what you know works for you. I often use his multiple intensities training using holistic, GVT and a basic positions of flexion and have had great results while using a training journal to keep track of it all. GVT and POF days are pretty easy - holistic days are the ass kickers. But overtraining is never the goal...

**CrimsonTide** · 04-01-2003, 09:33 PM

I think you misunderstood my reply (and didn't want you to think that I'm not agreeing with you). Maybe I should have said for their level a beginner puts a lot of stress on their system. I was in no way saying a beginner should start off the way so many do by mimicking the pros routines in magazines/books/etc although I'm sure we have all seen someone just starting out trying to do a routine from the latest issue of *insert various mag title here* or something like that. I know that I personally probably wasted a lot of time just starting out by trying to do what I read in mags until someone was nice enough to point me in the right direction. I'm just now taking an interest in the actual science of bodybuilding so bear with me if I'm off-base

.

**CrimsonTide** · 04-01-2003, 09:39 PM

Hmmm one question: Just did a quick search of POF on the net; is that from Steve Holman's Critical Mass book?

**Warrior** · 04-02-2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by CrimsonTide
I think you misunderstood my reply (and didn't want you to think that I'm not agreeing with you). Maybe I should have said for their level a beginner puts a lot of stress on their system. I was in no way saying a beginner should start off the way so many do by mimicking the pros routines in magazines/books/etc although I'm sure we have all seen someone just starting out trying to do a routine from the latest issue of *insert various mag title here* or something like that. I know that I personally probably wasted a lot of time just starting out by trying to do what I read in mags until someone was nice enough to point me in the right direction. I'm just now taking an interest in the actual science of bodybuilding so bear with me if I'm off-base .

I know what your saying - but I believe more of the stress put on a beginnner is physcological and less physical than the advanced trainee. Unless of course the beginnner is working past their training level - than they are putting on a lot of stress on an undeveloped system. But yeah...

BTW - Hatlfields program in the book you mention was his answer for the natural athlete. But I do think his routine would require a good base to begin with as well as very sound nutritional support... and on top of that, use of anabolic steroids makes routine even more productive... deffinitly a good routine for the advanced bodybuilder while "on."

**Warrior** · 04-02-2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by CrimsonTide
Hmmm one question: Just did a quick search of POF on the net; is that from Steve Holman's Critical Mass book?

POF, or Postions of Flexion, I believe was a phrase coined by Charles Poliquin. But unlike Wieder, he did not just put a name on it. He took an average workout and fine tuned it... then put a title on it.

Positions of Flexion is basically on using a compound movement (for example, Barbell Press) with a supporting movement that is more isolating (like Dumbell Presses) with a final movement that is total isolation (like Flyes). He goes into detail on this in his book, Poliquin Principles - highly recommended.

This is good for strength gains and doesn't utilize a whole lot of movements. Which in reality is a waste of time, IMO. For example, rather than doing 3 working sets of Barbeel Curls followed by 3 sets of Cambered Curls... I find it more productive to do 5-6 working sets of one of the movements. Muscles groups can only be worked effectively from so many angles... and how can you change up your workout often if you don't do a selective few - but do them all in the same session?

You can't. Focusing on one allows the muscle group to get fully warmed up and the tendons/ligaments fully strecthed for those sets that really count. Rather than getting pumped and warmed up on one that switching to the other - stay on one. And then use the other on your next workout for training variety (stimulates growth as well as keeps workouts from lagging... training boredom and monotony can lead to a feeling of overtaining).