Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Nucleus Overload Training and Kettlebells

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    685
    Feedback Score
    0

    Nucleus Overload Training and Kettlebells

    Crazy question. Nucleus overload is a new type of weight training where you use very light weights and very high reps ---say 100-- for a month to three months. Then you take two weeks or a month off. Then you go back to regular progressive resistance training. Here is what is alleged to happen. Spurred on by the high reps and layoff, the muscle cells add new nuclei (that little bundle of DNA at the center of each cell). It is said only muscle cells can have multiple nuclei. Somehow, the additional nuclei prompt the muscle cell to get stronger and or increase in size.

    Fine. I actually met someone at a gym once who did this system because he simply did not know how to lift weights for a couple months. He was BIG.

    But I don't wanna be big. I wanna be stronger and I wanna work out with single kettlebells (thus imbalancing the body and forcing core work).

    So, I am thinking about starting with a 10 pound kettlebell and doing hundreds of reps for one month, then switching over to 25 or 35 pounds (I have no idea where I am after years of non-training with weights). So these will not be isolation, bodybuilding kinds of movement. They will be cleans, maybe presses, kettlebell swings, and so on.


    OK so what do you guys think? Will, what do you think? How crazy is this?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    335
    Feedback Score
    0
    This sounds like a terrible program for strength. If you want to get stronger then you need to lift heavy weights, not light weight for dozens of reps. Part of getting stronger is getting use to handling heavy weight on a regular basis. I highly recommend you check out Starting Strength. The book is on Amazon.

    Doing heavy barbell movements work your core a lot more than swinging a 35lbs kettlebell ever will.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    685
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sniperfrog View Post
    This sounds like a terrible program for strength. If you want to get stronger then you need to lift heavy weights, not light weight for dozens of reps. Part of getting stronger is getting use to handling heavy weight on a regular basis. I highly recommend you check out Starting Strength. The book is on Amazon.

    Doing heavy barbell movements work your core a lot more than swinging a 35lbs kettlebell ever will.
    Believe me, I have read plenty of books and done bodybuilding and Olympic lifting. This nucleus overload is unlike that in theory. NO is not a method of strength building itself, it is the preparatory step. If you don't know what NO is, then you don't understand.

    But meanwhile, I have decided to do something else with the kettlebells so this thread can be closed if you like?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    1,013
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    I know you decided to do something else, but the general idea (perhaps taken to an extreme by NO?) of higher rep light weight exercises is pretty standard for a first step in periodization. Seems counterintuitive, and I won’t pretend to know the science referenced, but intriguing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,649
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    I'd like to read about the supportive science behind the plan. IE muscle biopsy that can quantify this increase in cell nuclei.

    But I don't wanna be big. I wanna be stronger and I wanna work out with single kettlebells (thus imbalancing the body and forcing core work).
    I get not wanting to be big, but strong. WTF is this single kettle bell thing though? Is that all you have access to?

    A low bar squat, deadlift (set your low back properly) or a pull-up, is going to do more for core strength then some kettle bell nonsense. Why are you stressing core strength anyway? If you take your squat from 135lbs to 225lbs, is your core not stronger?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    666
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye View Post
    Nucleus overload
    Not to be rude, but that really sounds like B.S. I highly doubt that there is any rigorous science, data, or study to back any of those claims up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye View Post
    prompt the muscle cell to get stronger and or increase in size.
    That occurs with 'protein muscle synthesis,' which occurs predictably with traditional strength training (more on that later), and nutrition.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye View Post
    I actually met someone at a gym once
    again, no offense, but that is just some anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't put any stock in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye View Post
    But I don't wanna be big. I wanna be stronger
    Great! There are very well established ways of doing that with minimal guessing and frustration, and risk of injury.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye View Post
    and I wanna work out with single kettlebells (thus imbalancing the body and forcing core work).
    OK, again, not to be rude, but that is very unlikely to achieve your own stated goal of getting stronger. Sure, if you are starting from sedentary, or mostly sedentary lifestyle, doing anything will increase your strength, but nothing compare to a routine centered around a barbell, 45 lb. plates, and traditional lifts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye View Post
    So, I am thinking about starting with a 10 pound kettlebell and doing hundreds of reps for one month, then switching over to 25 or 35 pounds (I have no idea where I am after years of non-training with weights). So these will not be isolation, bodybuilding kinds of movement. They will be cleans, maybe presses, kettlebell swings, and so on.
    If your goal i to get strong, the load (weights), and volume (sets, reps) that you outline will not achieve your stated goal. You simply will not achieve the physical stress stimuli to make yourself as strong as you would with traditional barbell lifts (squat, deadlift, bench, overhead press, etc.) and rep ranges from 4-10, working in 3-4 sets, at 60-80% of your maximum ability, and then progressively adding weight from workout to workout, or week to week, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye View Post
    OK so what do you guys think? How crazy is this?
    I'd say you're wandering into the snake oil/broscience spectrum of the fitness industry, but unfortunately there is a lot of that. Some movement, and resistance training is always better than nothing, BUT if you want to get as strong as you can, get into a barbell focused program. Someone mention Starting Strength, which I think is fine for basic technique explanation I prefer Barbell Medicine.
    Free BB Medicine Beginner Program, with supporting explanations of programming, technique, equipment, nutrition, etc: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog...-prescription/
    It takes some time to read, and watch all of the info to get started, but well worth it, IMO.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida Gulf Coast
    Posts
    1,428
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye View Post
    Crazy question. Nucleus overload is a new type of weight training where you use very light weights and very high reps ---say 100-- for a month to three months. Then you take two weeks or a month off. Then you go back to regular progressive resistance training. Here is what is alleged to happen. Spurred on by the high reps and layoff, the muscle cells add new nuclei (that little bundle of DNA at the center of each cell). It is said only muscle cells can have multiple nuclei. Somehow, the additional nuclei prompt the muscle cell to get stronger and or increase in size.

    Fine. I actually met someone at a gym once who did this system because he simply did not know how to lift weights for a couple months. He was BIG.

    But I don't wanna be big. I wanna be stronger and I wanna work out with single kettlebells (thus imbalancing the body and forcing core work).

    So, I am thinking about starting with a 10 pound kettlebell and doing hundreds of reps for one month, then switching over to 25 or 35 pounds (I have no idea where I am after years of non-training with weights). So these will not be isolation, bodybuilding kinds of movement. They will be cleans, maybe presses, kettlebell swings, and so on.


    OK so what do you guys think? Will, what do you think? How crazy is this?
    This is ****ing retarded, that's what I think. It's been proven that high rep/low weight is not only sub optimal for building size, it's sub optimal for building strength. If you want to build strength you move heavy ass weight and you move it in the 1-5 rep range. You want to get strong? Wendler 5/3/1, particularly the big and boring program. Why in the hell are you averse to getting big? How about eat right, lift heavy, stay conditioned and see what happens? I can promise, with absolute certainty, that without copious drug abuse, you will not get "too big." In fact, even with some responsible drug abuse you still won't get "too big," you'll just get "really fit." People who fit the stigma of "too big" but are really strong are your stereotypical power lifters. They use large doses of drugs, stuff their faces with excessive amounts of usually pretty dirty food and skip conditioning day. They claim that they cant be this strong without being 75 lbs over weight but in reality, they just have an eating disorder. The only difference between the average power lifter and the average pre diabetic morbidly obese trailer park dweller is that one of them has a dedicated gym routine.

    You can't look at genetic outliers that are probably also, likely on drugs. Just because it works for a select group of people doesn't mean it works. Theres a certain percentage of the population that can eat like shit, do everything wrong in the gym and still get jacked out of their minds. Lifting heavy ass weight, however, works for everyone.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    685
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elephantrider View Post
    Not to be rude, but that really sounds like B.S. I highly doubt that there is any rigorous science, data, or study to back any of those claims up.

    That occurs with 'protein muscle synthesis,' which occurs predictably with traditional strength training (more on that later), and nutrition.

    again, no offense, but that is just some anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't put any stock in it.

    Great! There are very well established ways of doing that with minimal guessing and frustration, and risk of injury.

    OK, again, not to be rude, but that is very unlikely to achieve your own stated goal of getting stronger. Sure, if you are starting from sedentary, or mostly sedentary lifestyle, doing anything will increase your strength, but nothing compare to a routine centered around a barbell, 45 lb. plates, and traditional lifts.

    If your goal i to get strong, the load (weights), and volume (sets, reps) that you outline will not achieve your stated goal. You simply will not achieve the physical stress stimuli to make yourself as strong as you would with traditional barbell lifts (squat, deadlift, bench, overhead press, etc.) and rep ranges from 4-10, working in 3-4 sets, at 60-80% of your maximum ability, and then progressively adding weight from workout to workout, or week to week, etc.

    I'd say you're wandering into the snake oil/broscience spectrum of the fitness industry, but unfortunately there is a lot of that. Some movement, and resistance training is always better than nothing, BUT if you want to get as strong as you can, get into a barbell focused program. Someone mention Starting Strength, which I think is fine for basic technique explanation I prefer Barbell Medicine.
    Free BB Medicine Beginner Program, with supporting explanations of programming, technique, equipment, nutrition, etc: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog...-prescription/
    It takes some time to read, and watch all of the info to get started, but well worth it, IMO.
    Nucleus Overload is something new. I learned about it through a scientist (a real scientist not a broscientist). I can give you a link to the site if you are really interested. I am not going to argue or explain this concept since I have no dog in the fight whatsoever. As I stated, I am not doing this kind of workout. It was a thought for me, that is all.
    Last edited by Dr. Bullseye; 12-13-19 at 22:44.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    666
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye View Post
    Nucleus Overload is something new.
    No, it really isn't. It's a new buzz phrase with 'training' slapped onto the ass of it. It's 'hypertrophy' (something that is accomplished with traditional training methods) repackaged. Oh, and you won't achieve much hypertrophy with some ridiculously high rep count and minimal weight. Also the month on, month off stuff sounds silly. If you want to go on a deep dive re: hypertrophy, PMS, Myonuclear Domain, or whatever, here is another BB Medicine link:
    https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog...ctice-part-ii/
    Last edited by elephantrider; 12-13-19 at 23:00.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida Gulf Coast
    Posts
    1,428
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by elephantrider View Post
    No, it really isn't. It's a new buzz phrase with 'training' slapped onto the ass of it.
    This. High rep/low weight has been preached for years as being the secrete to getting strong for those too weak minded to lift heavy weight. Nucleus Overload is the same thing as Greg Glassman taking Jazzercise, throwing in some oly lifts and calling it Crossfit.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •