John Berardi - Gang of Five, Sep 2001 (Text Version)

Gang of Five - Sep 2001
By John M Berardi
First published at www.t-mag.com

"Uh, I swear officer, it's for recovery purposes only . . ."

Q. Ready for another excuse to smoke pot? Since the stress hormone cortisol is responsible for so many catabolic actions in the body, would something like marijuana that reduces stress help counteract it?

A. This kind of "narrow" thinking and tunnel vision is just what gets people into trouble. Why do people always try to turn a negative behavior into something seemingly positive? Is it to justify the behavior? Is it to twist their perspective so that they don't have to recognize the harm they're doing to themselves? Whatever the reason, it gets on my nerves. Then again, maybe I should just cool down and go smoke a joint. My stress level is getting high (no pun intended) and I don't want to get all catabolic (yes, this is sarcasm).

Listen, you have to understand that the body is a complex physiological unit that works as an integrated whole. One part does not work independently of another. So although smoking pot may relax you and reduce your "perceived stress", does this mean that your adrenal gland (the source of stress hormones) will be less active? Probably not. Marijuana contains a whole host of physiological "toxins" that do a relatively good job "stressing out" your physiology in other ways including causing some negative changes to heart, lung, and brain function. I won't even waste time listing all the potential physiological problems that may be associated with marijuana use since a simple internet search will list them for you. However here is a quote taken from the web site of Dr.Oscar Cabrera, a psychology and narcotics trafficking expert and professor at the University of Houston.

"Marijuana can be termed "harmless" in the sense that it has never been directly linked to any deaths. However, smoking of marijuana (the most popular method of ingestion) has been linked to memory loss, transitory sexual impotence, lung cancer, inattentiveness, and lower testosterone levels, which contribute to male infertility. This last effect has the greatest significance for adolescent males going through the pubertal process, because interference with the body's distribution of testosterone could lead to short- and long-term behavioral and physiological aberrations. Additionally, some individuals using marijuana (especially those using the drug for the first time) experience severe panic or anxiety attacks. Although marijuana does not have the same potential for psychological and/or physiological dependence as cocaine or heroin, it still retains a significant potential to induce psychological dependence."

In addition, normal physiological concentrations of cortisol do not cause muscle catabolism anyway. Again, the body is pretty smart and produces stress hormones for a good reason. Taking any drug or supplement designed to decrease resting cortisol concentrations is unlikely to do anything to increase your muscle mass. So even if marijuana did decrease resting cortisol concentrations that would have very little effect on muscle growth.

Am I against smoking marijuana? No. But I certainly don't believe that smoking marijuana will enhance your muscle-building efforts. And I certainly don't think that you should justify your pot habits based on weight lifting grounds.

Rackin' it

Q. I just read how IFBB Pro Chris Cormier goes up the rack in one set of alternate dumbbell curls, going from 35's to 95's. When I try going up the rack in a similar fashion, I can't even use anywhere near my top weight by the time I get to it. Who's the freak here, me or Cormier? And do you think this a method worth using?

A. Training this way is certainly is novel, but let's not commit the error of mistaking novelty for effectiveness. So let's evaluate the program as well as the person performing it with some objectivity.

First, we're talking about Chris Cormier, one of the top three or four bodybuilders in the world today. Since it's no secret that the top pros have unbelievable genetics and also use a few extra "supplements" on top of their Tribex, we have to realize that these guys probably can tolerate workloads in the gym that would crush the average natural trainee and that might even topple the average steroid user. So we must be careful when looking at the training routines of these top pros.

With that said, I'd like to next discuss whether or not this program itself has any merit. Lets talk about volume. If Chris truly goes through the rack from 35s to 95s then he must hit each of the weights along the way. Well, that's 13 sets per arm or a total of 26 sets of curls that day. Assuming each set is about 60 seconds in duration, that's about 26 straight minutes of biceps curls. That's a long set; perhaps too long.

Now, if Chris can actually perform curls with 95-lb dumbbells, not only is he a super stud, but those first few sets with the lighter dumbbells must be a real joke for him. So he must be the king of inefficiency and waste a lot of time using weights that are way too light. Either that or he must go to failure on each set. The problem with the first approach is that if he doesn't go to failure then the first few sets are a waste and he may have to actually go and do more biceps work after this monstrous "set". And the problem with the second approach is that the lighter weights are probably so light that he cant get to failure or at least he has to do dozens of reps to get there. Can you say boredom? So either way, he's probably wasting a lot of time lifting what would be, relatively speaking of course, girly weights and he's probably spending upwards of an hour doing his biceps workout. This doesn't seem very efficient or effective to me.

Next, from metabolic and neuromuscular standpoints, going "up the rack" in this fashion isn't very beneficial at all for motor unit recruitment, muscle size, or muscle strength. Muscle fatigue with physical activity occurs in part due to the accumulation of metabolic by-products such as lactic acid and the hydrogen ion (makes the muscle acidic), due to the depletion of other cellular constituents such as ATP and phosphocreatine, and potentially due to disruptions in ion (sodium, calcium, potassium) balance across the cell. So by doing dozens of reps with light weights that will lead to the aforementioned changes, by the time you get to the big weights, these cellular changes would prevent the ability to achieve a maximal force production.

Skeletal muscle gets bigger and stronger when the maximum amounts of motor units are recruited. This type of recruitment of what are called high threshold motor units only occurs when maximal weights are handled or you train to the point that the low threshold units fatigue and the high threshold ones take over. In this second scenario, however, the muscle may fatigue and stop producing force before the high threshold units take over and get challenged. Therefore if the muscles are fatigued by going "up the rack", by the time you get up to your true max weight, you may be too fatigued to produce enough force for a constant and progressive overload. Thus maximal motor unit stimulation is prevented and growth is compromised. While some growth may also be associated with enhanced muscle metabolism, the goal should be to create a training environment in which there is maximal recruitment and metabolic fatigue.

A much better strategy then would be to go "down the rack", starting with your max weight so that you can fully overload the high threshold motor units at the start of the exercise and then work your way down, activating the other lower threshold motor units and create metabolic fatigue. These will more likely stimulate better strength and size increases. If Chris grows from the "up the rack" method, he truly is an amazing genetic specimen.