Advanced Athletes and the Genetic Elite

Outliers are, by definition, going to be individuals that deviate from the norm in both directions. We like to glorify the extraordinary while conveniently forgetting that for every LeBron, there’s a Danny DeVito somewhere in the world (sorry Danny). So any comprehensive analysis of how to think about failure with outliers must include the unfortunate as well as the privileged.

Let’s begin at the top (literally) and lay down some mental models for the genetic elite—more specifically, professional bodybuilders.

Contrasting to our middle-of-the-road recreational lifter above, this subset of a subset of our sample population represents the highest tier of muscular advancement, strength, and monomaniacal dedication towards training. They’re willing to do anything it takes to gain an extra 1% advantage. We can also assume that their diet, recovery, and stress management are optimized for hypertrophy, with little in the way of external distractions. Their sole focus in life is to get really jacked and strong, and they have the genetics to promote that goal to the maximum.

For this group of people, moderation isn’t realistic. But that doesn’t mean recklessness is the answer either. While it’s not unreasonable to say that a majority of their sets should be to (or beyond) failure, the way in which failure is achieved, the exercises it’s used on, and the individual underlying context should all be considered and evaluated independently rather than making sweeping recommendations. But we can go over a few key points of differentiation that will be almost universally applicable among our genetic elites (and get more applicable with more standard deviations of separation):

• Pro bodybuilders will need a greater average intensity to continue to make progress
• Arsenal of exercise selection should narrow and become more specific (The lifecycle of exercise selection should look like Beginner> Narrow to focus on building a proper foundation, Intermediate> Broad to refine technical prowess across all variations, Advanced> Retracted as injuries accumulate and individualization is applied, Hyper-Advanced> Narrow as there will be few exercises that provide a strong enough risk:reward to justify their inclusion)
• A greater proportion of work should be done with “less risky” exercises and modalities, such as DBs, cables, and machines. This isn’t to say that more traditional movements like Barbell Squat, Bench, and Deadlift shouldn’t ever be done or don’t have any benefit here—It’s just that the local growth stimulus (at the target muscle) dwindles as genetic limits of muscularity are approached, and with rising strength and technical mastery, in comparison to the potentially deleterious acute and chronic effects of these movements.
• Heavy, compound movements taken to failure should mostly be done using machines or similar fixed/stable modalities to reduce risk, maximize force production, and modify according to the specific anatomy/limitations of the trainee.
• Isolation work and accessory volume should, almost exclusively, be taken to failure (at a minimum) once acclimated to the variation
• A spotter (or training partner) should be available at all times to maximize output and minimize risk.
• Less time will be needed to acclimatize to a given workload or movement because of the increased technical skill of this demographic
• Longer recovery times will be needed between overloading/disrupting sessions
• However, strategic undulations in volume, intensity, and exercise selection open up greater creativity for getting in additional frequency, and thus, stimulating volume
• Intensity techniques can be implemented more liberally, though should still align with the broader intra-meso progression model
• With the reduction in acclimation time and more aggressive progression models, mesocycles will tend to be shorter than those of other populations. It’s not uncommon at the highest levels to see 3:1 week paradigms of overloading-to-deload training due to the rapid accumulation of fatigue.
• Novel techniques such as blood-flow restriction, loaded stretching, and accommodating resistance should be considered.
• Novel periodization strategies such as AM/PM sessions, atypical microcycle splits, and phase-based body-part prioritization should also be considered.

Clearly, this is a non-exhaustive list. But the main take-home here is that the higher up you get in advancement, the more specific, refined, and intense the training must be to continue to make progress.

Does the same hold for the other end of the spectrum?