Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Training Q&A => Topic started by: Roger Bacon on September 19, 2012, 07:25:30 PM
-
Sorry to be a noob yet again (I'm actually not), but can someone brefly explain something to me please?
In order to increase muscle mass, micro tears gained by training with weights is required, right? These micro tears heal over, larger than before?
So why is there a difference in High Volume, versus High Intensity? It seems like taxing your muscles, one way or the other would result in the exact same outcome?
Does the difference in training styles have more to do with your nervous system adapting? ???
-
Mircro tear is a theory of adaptation and it doesn't tell the whole reason why a muscle gets bigger. The majority of champ bodybuilders have been volume guys. The bodybuilder muscle is both a muscle and fluid retention bloat caused by drugs. It seems to me that both training is needed. Low sets/ high weights and high sets moderate weights. It seems the volume of a muscle increases to muscular endurance training doing multiple sets that the muscle adapts to the stressor. Training for pure strength leads to a denser muscle.
-
Agree with OldTimer1, for the most part. It all starts on the individual muscle cellar level, and is quite complex. The goal is to have all elements balance with one another: DNA/RNA, amino acids,body chemical restructure/designs, absorption, waste removal, etc.
Very old saying among BB'ers; "More blood, more muscle". Volume (getting and keeping the pump) has been king for a very long time. Some of the BB'ers of the late 60's, 70's and early 80's performed higher rep's (10 to 15, perhaps more) workouts, 20- 30 sets a body part. With the current drug use, that volume can be reduced by 50%, perhaps more for some men. Drugs influence recovery quite quickly and getting the body ready to adapt to the next workout. Side affect; some BB'ers appear bloated and soft, in normal everyday life.
Should be getting real powerful with set's of 2's to 3's, which tends to produce dense tissue (though not the greatest method for inducing max muscle size) , along with thicker muscle attachments. A higher rep range between, 5 & 7 rep's, will improve strength and muscle size. Heavy lifters tend to have a thicker appearance than BB'ers. Some of them look like walking through a wall would be no big thing. On the other hand, BB'ers have to open a door to get through to the other side.
There is also Power BB'ing, which can give some guy's the best of both worlds; being very strong, with noticeable muscle mass. These lifters do use heavier weight when doing the classic BB'ing exercises. Cheating is welcomed in this style training.
As OldTimer1 stated, always a good idea to change the workout style around, from time to time. Go heavy, go moderate or even go light. After all, lifting is one be experimental lab, you never really know the results you may get, if you don't try all phases of workout protocols. Good Luck.
-
Thanks, very helpful!
I guess it's not as simple as I originally believed.
-
dont get too caught up in that idea of micro tears !!!!
STIMULATE, DONT ANNIHILATE!!! - LEE HANEY
-
dont get too caught up in that idea of micro tears !!!!
STIMULATE, DONT ANNIHILATE!!! - LEE HANEY
Some times you're helpful and factual! Please stick with this personality! 8)
Thanks
-
dont get too caught up in that idea of micro tears !!!!
STIMULATE, DONT ANNIHILATE!!! - LEE HANEY
I always thought one of the most interesting things I have heard is Bill Pearl when he said don't train to failure. I am a product of the Arthur Jones and later the Mike Mentzer influence. It felt like I didn't have a work ethic if I didn't go to failure.
To paraphrase Pearl he said if you constantly go to failure training you will have to stop because it will become so hard that you can't continue. In my own training experience I found if I have a decent base line I could go balls to the wall for 3 weeks and make big changes. Then I would be so shot I would have to take a week off. What I think Pearl was trying to say was to train hard but make sure you can keep it up week after week. Training like a lunatic gets great results but taking weeks off due to exhaustion is not the path to nirvana.
-
Agree with Tbombz and nice quote, by the way. Try not getting too concerned about the theory of cell division/rebuilding and other bio functions on the body. A waste of time, unless your a post grad student in bio-engineering or other such subjects. Or have a curious mind, which is a good thing.
Do become concerned about the recovery factor, the key to advancing muscle building progress, at a steady levels. Going to failure, on a regular bases, can be self defeating for most. 1 or 2 reps short of the point failure may be a good rule of thumb to go by. If your doing short, to the point workout (with serious intent), and keeping those workout to a max of 4 times a week, progress and success, can be more assured. Boost up the metabolism, with heavier compound movements, may also be suggested. Don't fear rep's in a higher range, like 10-12 for squats, DL's, Cleans, etc. They can increase better metabolism function for strength and muscle mass.
Don't have to eat like a fat pig, else you wind up looking like that fat pig. Getting at least 1000 calories over your personal (everyone's different) daily calorie maintenance requirements should be enough. I do find that taking N.O./Creatine and a higher quality protein together can give some good results. N.O./Creatine before the workout and a N.O./Creatine quality protein mix after the workout. Never been much on supplements myself, but this does seem to work well with trainee's I come in contact with. Good Luck.
-
I think there are three types of trainers. Type one has an incredible work ethic. Who won't put a bar down until at least positive failure is reached. Type two is motivated but will never red line that engine in training. Type two will stop short one or two reps for every set. Their last set might be to failure. Type three is the lazy guy who is delusional. He will short strokes squats, leg presses and all types of shoulder/pec presses so he can think he can handle big weights.
Type one can be his own worst enemy. He will kill himself every workout to the point of burn out. The gains come quick but so does total exhaustion. Type one will train like a dog for three weeks then have to take a week off. Type two seems to make the best gains. Going to failure maybe on the last set of a three or five set exercise. With this type of training he can train two months and not miss a workout. Type three is the permabulker who looks out of shape but always grabs the 120 lbs for partial dumbbell presses and 1000 lbs for his partial leg presses. His is delusional about his strength and his physique.
I have been a type one forever. I could make pretty drastic changes in 4 weeks if I was in decent shape to begin with. I would always burn out and need to rest for a week after doing lifting and cardio to exhaustion. I'm trying to be a type 2 but it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
-
I think there are three types of trainers. Type one has an incredible work ethic. Who won't put a bar down until at least positive failure is reached. Type two is motivated but will never red line that engine in training. Type two will stop short one or two reps for every set. Their last set might be to failure. Type three is the lazy guy who is delusional. He will short strokes squats, leg presses and all types of shoulder/pec presses so he can think he can handle big weights.
Type one can be his own worst enemy. He will kill himself every workout to the point of burn out. The gains come quick but so does total exhaustion. Type one will train like a dog for three weeks then have to take a week off. Type two seems to make the best gains. Going to failure maybe on the last set of a three or five set exercise. With this type of training he can train two months and not miss a workout. Type three is the permabulker who looks out of shape but always grabs the 120 lbs for partial dumbbell presses and 1000 lbs for his partial leg presses. His is delusional about his strength and his physique.
I have been a type one forever. I could make pretty drastic changes in 4 weeks if I was in decent shape to begin with. I would always burn out and need to rest for a week after doing lifting and cardio to exhaustion. I'm trying to be a type 2 but it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
good analysis, and type 2 makes gains percisely because of that last set til failure, all of the other sets were just wasted energy
-
I think there are three types of trainers. Type one has an incredible work ethic. Who won't put a bar down until at least positive failure is reached. Type two is motivated but will never red line that engine in training. Type two will stop short one or two reps for every set. Their last set might be to failure. Type three is the lazy guy who is delusional. He will short strokes squats, leg presses and all types of shoulder/pec presses so he can think he can handle big weights.
Type one can be his own worst enemy. He will kill himself every workout to the point of burn out. The gains come quick but so does total exhaustion. Type one will train like a dog for three weeks then have to take a week off. Type two seems to make the best gains. Going to failure maybe on the last set of a three or five set exercise. With this type of training he can train two months and not miss a workout. Type three is the permabulker who looks out of shape but always grabs the 120 lbs for partial dumbbell presses and 1000 lbs for his partial leg presses. His is delusional about his strength and his physique.
I have been a type one forever. I could make pretty drastic changes in 4 weeks if I was in decent shape to begin with. I would always burn out and need to rest for a week after doing lifting and cardio to exhaustion. I'm trying to be a type 2 but it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
GOOD POST!!! Very helpful!
I've always been a type one, and you've definitely made me realize how self defeating it can be.
-
good analysis, and type 2 makes gains percisely because of that last set til failure, all of the other sets were just wasted energy
I don't think sub failure sets are wasted energy. Muscles turn on or off completely according to theory. Each set is working on muscle fibers until they are all shot. If intensity is the magic bullet why not do one rep to failure?
Think of a guy doing 5 sets of 8. The first set is hard but not crazy. Set two is harder but 8 reps is achieved. Set three of 8 is finished but it's getting serious. Set four it takes almost every thing you have to get 8. Set 5 you reach failure at 6 reps. Was the first set a waste of effort? Many HIT guys would say yes. I say you are still working the muscles fiber groups. Wouldn't the guy doing 5 sets of 8 rep be doing more work than a guy doing 1 set of 8 to failure? 40 reps to 8 reps? Sometimes it's comparing apples to oranges. Middle distance track training to sprinting.
Take a 100 meter track guy. He might do 10 x 100 meters in one workout. Maybe 8 x 200 meters the next. Another day 60 meter repeats. If high intensity is the way through specificity of training he should do one all out 100 meter dash and call it a day every training day. Most would agree this is madness but HIT guys call for this in lifting. They would argue a 100 meter guy has to practice running. My ass is that argument dumb.
Robert Kennedy of Muscle mag who invented pre exhaustion has said multiple sets are better than single sets. 5 sets is better than 4 set but only fractionally with diminishing returns.
-
I don't think sub failure sets are wasted energy. Muscles turn on or off completely according to theory. Each set is working on muscle fibers until they are all shot. If intensity is the magic bullet why not do one rep to failure?
Think of a guy doing 5 sets of 8. The first set is hard but not crazy. Set two is harder but 8 reps is achieved. Set three of 8 is finished but it's getting serious. Set four it takes almost every thing you have to get 8. Set 5 you reach failure at 6 reps. Was the first set a waste of effort? Many HIT guys would say yes. I say you are still working the muscles fiber groups. Wouldn't the guy doing 5 sets of 8 rep be doing more work than a guy doing 1 set of 8 to failure? 40 reps to 8 reps? Sometimes it's comparing apples to oranges. Middle distance track training to sprinting.
Take a 100 meter track guy. He might do 10 x 100 meters in one workout. Maybe 8 x 200 meters the next. Another day 60 meter repeats. If high intensity is the way through specificity of training he should do one all out 100 meter dash and call it a day every training day. Most would agree this is madness but HIT guys call for this in lifting. They would argue a 100 meter guy has to practice running. My ass is that argument dumb.
Robert Kennedy of Muscle mag who invented pre exhaustion has said multiple sets are better than single sets. 5 sets is better than 4 set but only fractionally with diminishing returns.
i have a question for you... how does a muscle get bigger?
i say increased training load, as this has been my personal experience and the experience of many others i have seen who got bigger muscles
quite honestly, i have NEVER seen anyone get bigger musles without increasing their training loads, and i've seen quite a few dudes who got bigger muscles
using myself as an example, my lunge wieght has gone up from 40 pounds per bell for 8 reps to 70 pounds per bell for 8 reps, and my quads are noticeably bigger
i was doing 2 sets til failure every 3 days and i went up 10 pounds per bell over a 6 week period, but then i went to 1 set til failure every 4 days and my training weight went up 20 more pounds per bell over another 6 week period, so in my case less was more
anyways, the whole ballgame is increased training loads
-
i have a question for you... how does a muscle get bigger?
i say increased training load, as this has been my personal experience and the experience of many others i have seen who got bigger muscles
quite honestly, i have NEVER seen anyone get bigger musles without increasing their training loads, and i've seen quite a few dudes who got bigger muscles
using myself as an example, my lunge wieght has gone up from 40 pounds per bell for 8 reps to 70 pounds per bell for 8 reps, and my quads are noticeably bigger
i was doing 2 sets til failure every 3 days and i went up 10 pounds per bell over a 6 week period, but then i went to 1 set til failure every 4 days and my training weight went up 20 more pounds per bell over another 6 week period, so in my case less was more
anyways, the whole ballgame is increased training loads
Sure increasing weights used is one way for a muscle to adapt to a stressor. If you have the majority of bodybuilders using volume ( muscular endurance training) that shows it isn't as simple thinking that getting stronger is the way to big muscles. If that was the case we would do multiple sets of 3 and under to get strong in a movement.
I think gaining muscular endurance for lack of a better term increases muscle size. Look at gymnasts. They are not training to exhaustion for low sets but training long and hard. Training for muscular endurance isn't easy training compared to pure strength lifting.
If you can increase the weight used for say 5 sets of 8 reps in the bench doing the same amount of time or less you will increase muscle size but that isn't the best way to increase your one rep max for the bench. It would be doing low reps to make it simplistic.
I trained with hit for over 30 years before I came to see the light. You do need both heavy and moderate weights. Danny Padilla said when he tried HIT using heavy weights for a few sets he lost size and leanness. When he went back to doing almost everything for 5 sets of 12 he made the gains he was looking for.
For young guys that have less than 5 years under their belt lifting they should be very concerned with getting stronger. Long time trainers should look to increase muscular endurance.
-
Good post from OldTimer1, gets to the bottom line of most training in a insightful way..
I would be included into the type 2 class. And most of the guy's I trains with also. Not saying it's the best for everyone, that would be a stretch, but seems to complete the object of working out in the first place...for me anyway. Brief time spent in the gym, but with serious intent. There are times that crossing the failure line would be to test the strength improvement of any lift, to the max extent. And as OldTimer1 suggest, the last and final set, of a given exercise. Some guy's get the mistaken belief that heavy weights are not used in non failure sets, not true of course.
There is another way, of going to complete & absolute failure, and yielding some very exceptional results. That would be a 20 rep heavy squat scheme. Which would be one set and one set only. Can apply this to DL, C&J, power cleans, etc. Somewhat akin to the the old Rest/Pause system.
dj181: just for the sake of experiment, might try those 5 sets with a lighter weight on the bar. If using 250, strip down to 220-225, for those 8 good reps, each set. Making sure you never go to the point of failure. Next workout you might surprise yourself on the improvement of strength. And yes, it's all about the number/times you do a rep in a single workout, for a muscle group.The numbers are broken down into individual sets. It's the tonnage theory, that PL'ers and Olympic lifters use, at certain phases of their workouts. Good luck.
-
Danny Padilla said when he tried HIT using heavy weights for a few sets he lost size and leanness.
do you have any idea if his training loads went down during this phase?
i'm willing to bet that they did
but seriously man, do you really think that one could go from benching 200 for 6 reps to 250 for 6 reps and get smaller pecs, delts, and tris? and believe me, i ain't trying to be a d!ck here, coz you're a cool dude and i got no beef with you, i'm just trying to make a point
also, i think the best/ideal rep range is roughly 5-8 reps (except maybe legs, which could go up to 12-15 reps)
when i say increased training loads, i'm not talking about a 1-3 rep max, but a good 5-8 reps
-
i have a question for you... how does a muscle get bigger?
That's what I want to understand. I was reading a scientific explanation I found on some University website but couldn't follow past the fourth paragraph because of all the technical terminology.
-
No matter which approach you choose the goal should still be progressive overload. If you take a lift from 300lbsx8 to 350lbsx8 or you take a lift from 300lbs x 6,6,6,6 to 300lbs x 10,10,10,10 the results will be visible.
But look a little closer 300lbs x 8reps = 2400
350lbs x 8reps = 2800
that is a 400 lb increase in total load
Now,
300lbs x 6reps x 4sets = 7200
300lbs x 10reps x 4sets = 12000
that is a 3000lb difference in total load
This is why volume is the prefferred method for hypertrophy, the overall work load within a productive intensity range ( in relation to 1rm ) is much higher leading to a much more dramatic total workload increase.
-
No matter which approach you choose the goal should still be progressive overload.
ex-fucking-actly!
you gotta find whatever method allows you to best apply progressive overload, for me it is ultra low volume with sets taken til failure staying within the 5-8 rep range
if you can apply progressive overload doing 10 sets of 10 then so be it, use this method
for me that method and other methods like it, caused my training loads to actually decrease :'( :'( :'(
-
So getting stronger equals building muscle mass?
Nothing in bodybuilding makes sense to me lol
-
You CAN get stronger without getting bigger
You CAN'T get bigger without getting stronger ( drug protocols aside)
A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle, people mistake this by thinking that the biggest guy is automatically the strongest guy, which we all know isn't true. BUT, a bigger version of you will always be a stronger version of you, maybe not necessarily in 1rms but 8-12rms, and maybe it won't be in the squat or bench but incline db presses and hack squats instead.
-
a bigger version of you will always be a stronger version of you
correcto-mundo
Arnold was not very strong for his size, and that's because he had shit leverage factors ie. long limbs, not ideal muscle attachments for strength, etc
but.... in order for Arnold to get his muscles bigger, HE MUST GET THEM STRONGER
when he made his calves bigger, you can be damn sure that he did indeed increase his calf training poundages
-
your strength should be one of your tools to gauge progress, true.
but strength is relative. and its not the onnly gauge of progress. certainly there are other factors that play into. for example, body weight and muscle size.
if your not making progress and you arent gaining strength, you should probably change your trainig untill you find something where you start making progress and gaining strength.
if have grown larger, there will be more strength potential inside the muscle. but alot of times a big muscle isnt conditioned for strength because the trainer has grown his muscle by doing volume, bodybuilding style workouts, squeezing the muscle and focusing on the negative instead of lifting heavy and doing low repetitions. this big guy with big muscles has the potential to be stronger than he was before, but if he hasnt been lifting heavy then he wont be able to lift at full potential untill he conditions his muscles for heavy lifting again.
all in all, progress is progress. if your growing and your goal is growing, then what your doing is working and you should keep doing it even if your not getting any stronger while you grow. but if your not growing, then you may want to consider changing up your training to something where you start experiencing strength gains because often times that can jump start muscle gains.
-
If you are a dedicated trainer who has been training for years how much stronger can you get? I would bet if someone trained for say 10 years from 18 to say 28 and reached his genetic and work ethic limit of say 315 in the bench where does he go from there? Did he hit his genetic limit for size because he can't get any stronger? Should he constantly bang his head into a wall trying to beat that limit. I would say he would get better muscle growth if he worked on increasing his muscular endurance. I bet his max single would go down but his muscular endurance would go up. I bet his muscle size would too.
-
If you are a dedicated trainer who has been training for years how much stronger can you get? I would bet if someone trained for say 10 years from 18 to say 28 and reached his genetic and work ethic limit of say 315 in the bench where does he go from there? Did he hit his genetic limit for size because he can't get any stronger? Should he constantly bang his head into a wall trying to beat that limit. I would say he would get better muscle growth if he worked on increasing his muscular endurance. I bet his max single would go down but his muscular endurance would go up. I bet his muscle size would too.
that's a good question, but i seriously don't think that it's possible to increase a muscle's size with endurance training
every single person that i knew who got bigger muscles increased thier training loads (with roids and without)
i've got frank Zane's training journals and there is something very interesting within them, and that is that from 77 til 80 his training poundages were basically the same and during that time he stepped on stage each year @ roughly 187
then in 82 he increased his training poundages and guess what? he stepped on stage @ bout 200 pounds
-
that's a good question, but i seriously don't think that it's possible to increase a muscle's size with endurance training
every single person that i knew who got bigger muscles increased thier training loads (with roids and without)
i've got frank Zane's training journals and there is something very interesting within them, and that is that from 77 til 80 his training poundages were basically the same and during that time he stepped on stage each year @ roughly 187
then in 82 he increased his training poundages and guess what? he stepped on stage @ bout 200 pounds
Good point. Will you be bigger benching 100lbs or 200?
-
Every champ trains heavy early in his career. When Arnold was training for most of his Olympia wins he wasn't using max weights. He was training as heavy as he could using high sets. Even Casey Viator at his absoulute best was training for volume for the 82 Olympia doing about 16 sets a body part.
Look at two opposite training systems using chest as an example. On trainer uses the flat bench press for 2 sets of 6 reps for his work sets training to failure. Then after warm up he does 2 sets of 6 reps of barbell incline press. Lastly 2 sets of 10 reps for flies. That is hard training if you are pushing to failure. Next training cycle he does flat bench of 5 sets of 8 reps. Inclines 5 sets of 8 reps and flat flies for 5 sets of 12 reps. This trainer is also working brutally hard but it's comparing apples to oranges. Like comparing 5K training to 100 meter training. Both train hard but it's two different animals.
If HIt was the magic method of muscle increase you couldn't have the majority of bodybuilding champions training with volume. Also most of the champions who the HIT camp claims as theirs were volume trainers.
-
you should be doing both in a cyclical fashion. you have to do low reps for a while to build up to be able to do high volume with that heavy weight. then after doing high volume with the weight you can bump up to low reps with an even heavier weight. use the new heavier weight untill you can use it high volume. then increase again. etc.
or in any other cyclical pattern (day by day, or week by week, or month by month ..3 month by 3 month.. etcc)
just stay away from failure
-
Failure is a tool in lifting like many others. It has it's place. It shouldn't be what your program is based on. Power lifters and Olympic lifters who train for that single rep don't train to failure most of the time yet it's preached that bodybuilders should always go to failure?
Failure is relative. One rep to failure where the second isn't possible. 8 to 12 reps to failure in one set. Volume to failure where the you reach failure on the forth or fifth set.
-
Again for the most part, I agree with TbombZ.
Periodization still holds a strong contribution to successful training protocols. Including BB'ers, Pl'ers, Olympic lifters, strongmen training, etc. Once understanding that principle, and how your body (not what the Pro's, the video's, books, articles, etc want to feed you) reacts, adjust and recovers than progress should advance at a steady pace. The importance of taking a week (or two) off between the end of a periodization (anywhere from 8 to 12...for me anyway..even if still feeling I may be making some progress, I will take a week off and than to another workout phase) will become important also. Even if still making some progress at the end of 12 weeks
Interjecting an example of the periidzation plan I will usually follow on a yearly bases. With periodization, good to map out a long term plan for workouts.
1) Heavy rack training. Partial reps, lockouts,starting positions, etc. High intensity, 4 to 6 reps. Sometimes sets of 3's.
2) GVT (10X10's) using the same weight on the bar the whole 100 (10X10) reps. High volume, moderate intensity
3) General BB'ing. 8-12 reps reps, 2 to 3 exercises a body part. 60 seconds between sets, 90 seconds between exercises. Keeping a fast pace throughout. Volume will equate with high intensity, in this case, due to lighter weight used and the speed of the workout..
Going to failure is not an option, in any of these 3 training phases. Nor should it be, for most workouts.
Increasing ones strength does not always carry with it, increased muscle mass. The ratio never seems to be the same for most guy's. The trend now, by some very large and strong men, is to pay attention to the middle part of a exercise, rather than a full ROM. The TUT (Time Under Tension..been around for decades) , in that middle range seems very important to them. Want the most work in the shortest period of time, so this can be a logical way to approach working out. Works for everybody..no, but can be worth a try for some who are stuck in the same old workout systems. Nothing really works the same for everyone. Good Luck.
-
so are you're saying that one is able to increase muscle size without increasing training loads jpm?
sorry man, but i just don't buy it
-
How do you define training loads? If you do 5 sets of 12 reps with 200lbs and increase it to 205 did you increase your training load? How about if you decreased the time it took to complete 5 sets of 12 reps?
If increasing the weight is the only way to increase size you better give up lifting after a year or two because for the most part you will hit your max. You can go for many years increasing your muscular endurance.
No one can increase the weight they use for years. If you max out with 200lbs in some exercise should you year after year cycle to increase that weight?
-
If you do 5 sets of 12 reps with 200lbs and increase it to 205 did you increase your training load?
yep, that is an increased training load
and are you saying that endurance training can increase the size of a muscle?
let's put it this way... when arnold's biceps went from 16 inches to 19.5 inches you can be damn sure that he was able to curl with a heavier barbell
and yeah, you are right when you say that one can't keep training with heavier and heavier training loads, as that is true
but the whole point is... once the training loads stop increasing then the muscle stops growing and getting bigger
-
Let's say you squat 150lbs then you squat say 250lbs for 10 reps will your legs be bigger? Getting stronger with good form produces bigger muscles any damn it's not rocket science a dude that squat 400 will have bigger legs than a dude squatting 200.
-
The line between muscular strength and muscular endurance is very blurry when we are talking about traditional bodybuilding rep ranges. For argument's sake we don't even have to count the reps. If you can continuously rep a weight for let's say 15 seconds and three months later you can do the same thing with 30 more pounds have you gotten stronger or has your muscular endurance increased?
Technically you have gotten stronger, but if we also throw in the fact that now you are able to rep your original weight for 25 seconds instead of just 15 because it fells lighter to you, your muscular endurance has gone up as well.
-
dj181: I'm not selling it, so you don't have to buy it. That's just the way it is. If your talking pure BB'inbg, than your holding on to a very old concept, that does not always work the way you think it should. Maybe on paper, but not always in gym time. Don't know how long, or the lifting experience, you have but that should be fairly understandable. Good Luck.
-
and are you saying that endurance training can increase the size of a muscle?
(http://nbcoutofbounds.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/robertforstemannquads2.jpg?w=286)
(http://f2.blick.ch/img/incoming/origs1981871/1048556519-w900-h900/0000000006844546.jpg)
(http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/campaign_images/web03/2012/7/31/10/olympic-track-cyclists-legs-are-gigantic-1-30689-1343744434-11_big.jpg)
-
(http://nbcoutofbounds.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/robertforstemannquads2.jpg?w=286)
(http://f2.blick.ch/img/incoming/origs1981871/1048556519-w900-h900/0000000006844546.jpg)
(http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/campaign_images/web03/2012/7/31/10/olympic-track-cyclists-legs-are-gigantic-1-30689-1343744434-11_big.jpg)
lol
that's not endurance training :D
that dude is a SPRINT cyclist (short and very INTENSE bursts of training)
also, he does heavy POGRESSIVE OVERLOAD weight training
have you ever seen his full squatting vid?
-
::)
do you know how many repetitions are involved in a sprint cyclists race and workouts ?
doesnt matter if he does weightlifting as well, the majority of his workouts are high rep , endurance workouts on his bicycle and his legs are massive, much bigger than most amateur bodybuilders.
-
i suppose a track athlete who runs the 100 yard dash isnt doing endurance training either?
(http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2009/06/28/607791/bolt2-420x0.jpg)
-
Short dashes (40 to 220's) can be a good example of TUT training. The most effective/intense work load in the shortest period of time. One reason that the quads and ham's are exceptional on these athletes.Tthey also spend quite an amount of time on stretches, including upper body. Most train with weights, as do marathon runners but not the way one would suspect. All train with a stopwatch.
Though the dash event it's self can be termed short and intense, the training does include stamina (strength plus endurance) focus. And quite a lot of it. Not quite, but something near doing 10X10's (GVT) with 30-60 seconds between sets (personal note..which I have done in the past, mostly for football off season workouts).
Just to note, endurance training BB or other weight workouts, does not build much in the way of newer muscle mass. The only exception may be the PHA system, which is probably the better way of increasing stamina, strength and some size. Good Luck.
-
Just to note, endurance training BB or other weight workouts, does not build much in the way of newer muscle mass. The only exception may be the PHA system, which is probably the better way of increasing stamina, strength and some size. Good Luck.
exactly, OVERLOAD builds new muscle
-
exactly, OVERLOAD builds new muscle
pick and choose the words you want to accept and ignore the stuff you dont. its your life man. you can choose to tihnk whatever you want. but the facts remain that athletes who do high rep training like sprinters of all kinds develop muscle size and strength (and more so than you have).
how many reps do you think are involved in the 100 yard dash ? 50-75 probably.
doing higher rep bodybuilding training in the 10-20 rep zone while using good form and squeezing the muscle is a great addition to mid rep range work (6-10) and throwing in some heavy work (1-5) is also good as well.
you CAN build muscle doing higher reps and in FACT youll build muscle better by incorporating all the rep schemes instead of just focusing on one or the other.
-
:o
pick and choose the words you want to accept and ignore the stuff you dont. its your life man. you can choose to tihnk whatever you want. but the facts remain that athletes who do high rep training like sprinters of all kinds develop muscle size and strength (and more so than you have).
how many reps do you think are involved in the 100 yard dash ? 50-75 probably.
doing higher rep bodybuilding training in the 10-20 rep zone while using good form and squeezing the muscle is a great addition to mid rep range work (6-10) and throwing in some heavy work (1-5) is also good as well.
you CAN build muscle doing higher reps and in FACT youll build muscle better by incorporating all the rep schemes instead of just focusing on one or the other.
You are drawing the wrong paralells in your comparison between weight training and sprinting. A 100 meter sprint lasts about 10 seconds, that's the only number that matters. Total duration of an all out effort, not the amount of strides that are taken. That same 10 seconds will be roughly the same amount of time it would take you to perform a 2-4 rep all out heavy set. Or perhaps seeing how many reps you can get in 10 seconds with a lighter weight by going as fast you can, which will force you to make every single rep as fast and EXPLOSIVE as possible like a sprint.
-
you can do sets of 3 reps or sets of 25 reps, but in order to get bigger muscles YOU MUST increase the training loads within whatever rep scheme that you choose
if you go from curling a 50 pound barbell for 25 reps til failure to curling a 100 pound barbell for 25 reps til failure then you can be damn sure that you will have bigger biceps
-
Yev, your input, while basically accurate, isnt helping the cause of trying to teach dj181 and those who might follow his suggestions that a mix of rep ranges is what works best and that strength training is great for strength but bodybuilding is something slightly different than strength training and ones strength should not be the sole gauge of progress but should be second to other factors such as muscle size and the mirror.
-
you can do sets of 3 reps or sets of 25 reps, but in order to get bigger muscles YOU MUST increase the training loads within whatever rep scheme that you choose
if you go from curling a 50 pound barbell for 25 reps til failure to curling a 100 pound barbell for 25 reps til failure then you can be damn sure that you will have bigger biceps
X2. if you get stronger you get bigger FACT.
-
X2. if you get stronger you get bigger FACT.
NOPE
if you get bigger, you get stronger. thats a fact. more muscle = more leverage.
but its possible to get stronger without getting bigger. you can gain strength without increasing muscle fiber size or quantity. you can gain strength by improving neural connections within the muscle. and low rep training primarily does that, not cause hypertrophy of the fibers.
guys who focus on strength alone are not, on average, as muscular as guys who do a higher volume, more form oriented, bodybuilding style of workout.
take a look at all the top powerlifters. then take a look at all the top bodybuilders. both of them use tons of drugs, but one of them is a hell of a lot more muscular than the other. reason? TRAINING.
bodybuilding training > strength training for muscle size.
-
NOPE
if you get bigger, you get stronger. thats a fact. more muscle = more leverage.
Yes, but you really don't know what comes first. Did the muscle first get stronger and then got bigger? Or did the muscle get bigger and is stronger as the result . You don't know the answer to this for a fact, nor do I for that matter. What I do know is that the muscle will not get bigger or stronger without a proper stimulus which happens during training. And since BB, powerlifting, and OLY lifting training stimulus taxes a muscle's strength capacity first and foremost to various degrees, I am willing to make a hypothesis that a muscle gets stronger first and foremost.
but its possible to get stronger without getting bigger. you can gain strength without increasing muscle fiber size or quantity. you can gain strength by improving neural connections within the muscle. and low rep training primarily does that, not cause hypertrophy of the fibers.
Yes, but you do reach a point where you become so neurologically efficient at a movement that continued progress requires an increase in muscle size. On top of that, OLY lifters tend to do most of their work in low rep ranges yet attain quad development on par with bodybuilders.
guys who focus on strength alone are not, on average, as muscular as guys who do a higher volume, more form oriented, bodybuilding style of workout.
take a look at all the top powerlifters. then take a look at all the top bodybuilders. both of them use tons of drugs, but one of them is a hell of a lot more muscular than the other. reason? TRAINING.
Yes, but you can't discount two very important factors:
1. They don't use identical drug stacks. Yes they both use a good amount, but they don't use the exact same compounds in the exact same ratios.
2. Geared powerlifting (equipped) is not just about RAW strength. It's about knowing how to get the most out of your equipment and training accordingly. The numbers you see being put up at a geared meet are very different than what is being done in the gym before the gear comes on.
If you look at the powerlifters from the 70's, a lot of them looked like offseason bodybuilders.
bodybuilding training > strength training for muscle size.
Strength training builds a solid base, bodybuilding training adds the finishing touches.
-
Some old school powerlifters:
-
Make no mistake when I am talking about endurance I am talking about muscular endurance. Not the ability to run a fast 10K. It has become very apparent to me over the years that becoming STRONGER in volume is how the majority of bodybuilders train.
If getting stronger is the magic bullet we would all be trying to increase our one rep max as a primary goal. Increasing muscle as in a bodybuilder build is improving your strength in volume with a few exceptions.
This leads us to this question. What is superior? Trying to get stronger in this chest workout? Flat bench 1 set of 6 to failure. Then bar inclines of 1 set of 6 to failure. Then finish with one set of flies to failure.
Or is this better? Flat bench of 4 sets of 8 failing on the last set due to fatigue; inclines of 4 set of 8 reps again failing on the last set. Lastly flies in the same manner. The first set is hard but not crazy. The second is getting harder. The third is tough. The forth you might fail at 6 reps trying to get 8.
Both methods get results. I think the volume way is superior way to train for results. You can also increase intensity by working out faster.
I noticed someone brought up running sprinters and bike sprinters as having more muscle than endurance runners and endurance cyclists. This is true. It's also true that sprinters do numerous sets (intervals) of work. A running 100 meter sprinter might do 6 x 200 meter repeats on one day. The next 10 x 60 yard repeats. Another day 20 x 40 yard repeats. Sounds like volume doesn't it? If they were going for that all out intensity a 100 meter runner would warm up and do one all out 100 meter sprint for specificity and call it a day knowing his second 100 meter couldn't equal his first. Yet many HIT guys claim that's the way we should weight train.
Most sprint athletes weight train but not all. Many bike sprinters and track runners don't lift.
-
Definetly agree with your post. In my opinion volume training is superior to HIT training. The problem is, most people don't know how to properly set up a volume routine. Setting up a HIT routine is much simpler.
The other side of the coin is going to failure. You CAN and should go to failure with volume training, but not on every set and every excercise. This is another thing that people screw up royally and end up either switching to HIT or never going to failure period.
Volume training is great, but man is it easy to fuck up if you don't know what you're doing.
-
I agree that screwing up a proper "volume" program is all too easy.
As a high-intensity guy, for example, I don't really know where to begin insofar as a higher volume training regime is concerned. What I do works OK anyhow, so I'm not inclined to make radical changes; still, the Yates/DC/Mentzer level training definitely takes its toll, and I KNOW I should cycle that with periods of lighter stuff.
But as I just said, as someone who's used to at least going to failure on a max set (or two on rare occasion), how to scale back the intensity to do more "work" is a bit of a mystery to me.
-
I agree that screwing up a proper "volume" program is all too easy.
As a high-intensity guy, for example, I don't really know where to begin insofar as a higher volume training regime is concerned. What I do works OK anyhow, so I'm not inclined to make radical changes; still, the Yates/DC/Mentzer level training definitely takes its toll, and I KNOW I should cycle that with periods of lighter stuff.
But as I just said, as someone who's used to at least going to failure on a max set (or two on rare occasion), how to scale back the intensity to do more "work" is a bit of a mystery to me.
have you ever tried taking more days off btw workouts as Mentzer suggested?
this concept of his of inserting extra rest days is very radical and nearly no one else actually practices it or follows it
-
I agree that screwing up a proper "volume" program is all too easy.
As a high-intensity guy, for example, I don't really know where to begin insofar as a higher volume training regime is concerned. What I do works OK anyhow, so I'm not inclined to make radical changes; still, the Yates/DC/Mentzer level training definitely takes its toll, and I KNOW I should cycle that with periods of lighter stuff.
But as I just said, as someone who's used to at least going to failure on a max set (or two on rare occasion), how to scale back the intensity to do more "work" is a bit of a mystery to me.
I have been a HIT guy forever. It started with reading everything Arthur Jones wrote before most bodybuilders even knew who he was. Then it was Mentzer who first hit it big back in 1976 with in interview in Muscle Builder explaining his radical training of 5 sets a body part and training the whole body in one session. I remember back in the day I would save every article I could get my hand on written by Jones, Darden, and Mentzer. To this day I have a fairly complete collection of what Mentzer wrote. I devoted all my workouts in my early twenties according the influence of Mentzer. What most don't understand is the workouts he suggested near the end of his life were workouts he didn't use when he competed. Witnesses of his workouts also suggest he did a few sets more than what was written too.
He broke big into the scene with whole body workouts ranging from 3 to 6 sets per body part. He then went to a 4 day split where he divided his body in half working each body part twice a week. This four day routine proved to much and he went to a rotation schedule that Mr. Florida Frank Calta used. Here he would split his body like this: legs, chest and tricep. The next was back, delts and biceps. He didn't use days of the week but to understand the split he would do workout one on Monday. Work out two on Wednesday and repeat workout one on Friday. Week ends off. Next week it would be reversed. Wednesday work out on Monday and so on. So each week a body part got hit directly twice a week or once. He used 3 to 6 sets a body part.He also wrote many times of how cardio was part of his training but toward the end of his days he was against it. Again when he retired from competition he came up with these mini workouts repeated after many days apart.
What I found following his type workouts was that they were brutal training. I could go balls to the wall for about 4 weeks before burn out but the gains were quick. I also feel that this power type bodybuilding program doesn't burn a lot of calories like a volume one does.
Now into my fifties and completely against steroids I have come to the realization I would have made better gains if I would have backed off the intensity and used more volume. Using a small amount of sets to failure doesn't hit all aspects of the muscles energy systems. Lets say you do one set of barbell curls till you are blue in the face and about to pass out. If you completed 10 reps; I bet after a rest you could get another 6 to 8 reps. Muscles fire completely on or off. Did that one set really get all the fibers? What would happen if you did 4 sets and failed on the last? Now you 40 reps with a weight instead of that one set to failure with 10. Please don't tell me about hitting a stick of dynamite one time with a big hammer.
I believe in heavy lifting. I believe in training to failure. I believe in low sets but all of these are tools to an end. I also believe in volume as contradictory as it seems. To sum up I have seen HIT guys go on to make amazing gains switching to volume. Volume is what the overwhelming amount of champions use. I have also seen the reverse of a volume gainer going to low sets to failure having good results but mainly it's the other way around.
-
Definetly agree with your post. In my opinion volume training is superior to HIT training. The problem is, most people don't know how to properly set up a volume routine. Setting up a HIT routine is much simpler.
The other side of the coin is going to failure. You CAN and should go to failure with volume training, but not on every set and every excercise. This is another thing that people screw up royally and end up either switching to HIT or never going to failure period.
Volume training is great, but man is it easy to fuck up if you don't know what you're doing.
i dont see any reason to ever go to failure. why do it? i experience good steady gains without doing so, and i never overtrain either. i can train longer, harder, more often, with more volume, recover faster, gain strength faster, gain size faster.. all by doing volume without going to failure. at least thats my own personal experience.
-
i dont see any reason to ever go to failure. why do it? i experience good steady gains without doing so, and i never overtrain either. i can train longer, harder, more often, with more volume, recover faster, gain strength faster, gain size faster.. all by doing volume without going to failure. at least thats my own personal experience.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
I would never recommend someone change what they are doing if they are making consistent steady progress.
As far as going to failure is concerned, I believe there is definetely a benefit in it when done correctly. Before I get into why, I want to explain what I am talking about when I use the term failure. To me a set done to failure is when you have stopped on the last rep you were able to complete on your own with the same ROM as the first rep.. I don't mean taking a set to the point of getting stalped by the bar, having your training partner help you on the last rep, or having your form or ROM look like a different excercise than the one you began the set with.
First and foremost, you don't really know where failure is if you haven't hit that point in a while. You might think you are leaving 1-2 reps in the tank when in reality you might be leaving 3-5.
Second, when you never go to failure and your poundages are increasing it can sometimes be misleading. You may have gone from leaving 4 reps in the tank with 200lbs and moved up to 240lbs but now you are leaving only 1 rep.
Third, going to failure taxes the CNS. The body works as a unit and the CNS is a major part of it. Harness it properly and you will reap the benefits, overtax it and see how quickly your training goes to shit.
Fourth, it's not a bad thing to push yourself and know when to back off. While your body certaintly adapts and progresses from the training load you expose it to, going to failure in an intelligent way can put a sense of urgency on the whole process.
-
cool post dude.
thanks.
id like to see you post on this board more often.
-
Thank you tbombz,
This is why I like the training board, we can have civil discussions even when there are opposing points of view.
-
i dont see any reason to ever go to failure. why do it? i experience good steady gains without doing so, and i never overtrain either. i can train longer, harder, more often, with more volume, recover faster, gain strength faster, gain size faster.. all by doing volume without going to failure. at least thats my own personal experience.
I stopped going to failure for a while now...well maybe once in a while in a final set, but its not really "failure". Just a spot.
I experience these too..i think its better this way
-
If you think volume training is the key to maximizing growth you REALLY dont have this stuff figured out at all.
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u337/anab0lic/202a6-dorian_yates_8595_zps660a5af6.jpg)
-
Lets post a picture of Ronnie Coleman who trains with volume and say if you got this figured out. Training with intensity like Dorian obviously worked. Training with volume has worked for more guys who are champions.
-
Lets post a picture of Ronnie Coleman who trains with volume and say if you got this figured out. Training with intensity like Dorian obviously worked. Training with volume has worked for more guys who are champions.
The only people that tend to do well with volume based routines are guys who are complete genetic freaks like Coleman. Dorian had good genes for bodybuilding but compared to Ronnie....they were terrible. Dorian actually did somewhat higher volume stuff earlier on in his career (although still less than most) and made some progress with it... and then got to a point where he could not add anymore muscle to his frame... until he reduced the volume and upped the intensity some more. The same was true for Mike Mentzer, he actually nearly quit bodybuilding entirely as the amount of time he was spending in the gym weekly thinking more volume was the answer was too much of time investment. If you spend enough time in various gyms you will see this holds true for most lifters....they tend to make some initially good progress, then never ever change after that point and look the same month after month year after year... what do all of these guys have in common? They do mid to high volume set routines.... The intesnity just inst there when you train like that, the muscle fibres just dont get torched like they need to be. This pretty much happened to me too.... i figured maybe i was just maxed out genetic wise, so I upped the drug dosage....no extra gains....added more food...just got fatter.... couldnt not grow a single ounce more muscle mass, wasnt until i really upped the intensity was i able to take my physique somewhere i didnt think it could go and I am still growing/getting stronger weekly.
-
Lets post a picture of Ronnie Coleman who trains with volume and say if you got this figured out. Training with intensity like Dorian obviously worked. Training with volume has worked for more guys who are champions.
Colemam bascially just held the size that he built from lifting heavier training loads previously through his volume training, volume training would ONLY make his muscles bigger IF it enabled him to incease his training loads
p.s. volume training did not build his size, increased training loads built his size
-
I hate to break it to you, but any guy who places top five at the Olympia let alone wins it, is a genetic freak. HIT has worked for guys no doubt, but the FACT is that the majority of the pros past and present have trained using volume routines.
-
I hate to break it to you, but any guy who places top five at the Olympia let alone wins it, is a genetic freak. HIT has worked for guys no doubt, but the FACT is that the majority of the pros past and present have trained using volume routines.
Yates was untouchable in the Olympia for 6 years straight vs some guys who i would argue have better genetics than him, he just trained smarter/harder.
And its true you absolutely need to be making gradual strength increases over time to make your muscles bigger...volume training just doesnt do that very well.... Yates said in an interview he has workout logs dating right back to his first workout and he continually got stronger year to year.... it can be done, you just need to know how to continually expose your muscles to a stress it hasnt already adapted/grown to handle which is what HIT based routines do best.
-
Yes I agree that you should get stronger, but you can do that with a volume approach like so many before have done.
-
Colemam bascially just held the size that he built from lifting heavier training loads previously through his volume training, volume training would ONLY make his muscles bigger IF it enabled him to incease his training loads
p.s. volume training did not build his size, increased training loads built his size
The point I am making he lifted with volume. That you cannot dispute. If volume didn't make his size why did he use volume?
-
Oldtimer1, reading your posts are like being in my own head. I too am in my fifties[53] and a huge fan of mentzer. When I first started training back in 1978 I used a whole body workout 3 times a week. I trained on First generation Nautilus equipment. Literally gained 20lbs. muscle in 2 years drug free. Over the years Family took priority etc... Now I have the free time to train as much as I want. Tried using the later teachings of mentzer and really felt like crap! Started back on the 3 day whole body and feel great. My question is were mentzer/jones right in the 70's or in the 90's???
-
Oldtimer1, reading your posts are like being in my own head. I too am in my fifties[53] and a huge fan of mentzer. When I first started training back in 1978 I used a whole body workout 3 times a week. I trained on First generation Nautilus equipment. Literally gained 20lbs. muscle in 2 years drug free. Over the years Family took priority etc... Now I have the free time to train as much as I want. Tried using the later teachings of mentzer and really felt like crap! Started back on the 3 day whole body and feel great. My question is were mentzer/jones right in the 70's or in the 90's???
i'd say that AJ was more right than Mentzer
what works best for me is keep volume ultra low only doing a handful of basic exercises but doing them more often, like twice a week
right now i'm doing dips, rows, squats, and pullovers and it's working great :)
-
dont get too caught up in that idea of micro tears !!!!
STIMULATE, DONT ANNIHILATE!!! - LEE HANEY
X2
-
Oldtimer1
If you were to start over again - knowing what you now know about training - what way would you set things up in terms of split/frequency/sets/reps - for size?
Just curious as I've always been a HIT/Heavy Duty trainer myself.
-
. High Intensity the way to go.
-
I stopped going to failure for a while now...well maybe once in a while in a final set, but its not really "failure". Just a spot.
I experience these too..i think its better this way
i agree with this as well... i find that with high volume when i 'fail' it's more of a momentary failure... and a good pump
-
Both methods can be productive. Ronnie coleman might have trained in the 10-12 rep range but he lifted heavy and increased poundage during his entire career. Old timer is correct in saying when changing things up for the advanced lifter in either direction ussally sparks new gains or atleast a new look to the muscles. From the start I've never trained high volume. High volume for me was the traditional 12 sets for large and 9 for smaller groups. Using the traditional pyrmid system. After years of training besides the first movement on most exercises the middle sets became unesscary. For example Incline barbell presses 10-8-6 flat barbell 2x6 dips 2x6-8. You can either go right into the working sets after the first movement or perform a moderate to heavy set and one all out set. This style of training is great but difficult deep into a contest diet adding extra sets with a the heaviest set might be more productive since increasing poundage is not possible.
-
A hundred reps all day long every exercise. LOL