Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Fatpanda on October 10, 2008, 01:35:15 PM
-
i would like to try something different on getbig, have a proper bodybuilding discussion about rep ranges, and number of sets.
i have read a few studies etc that compare rep rangs etc and have come to the conclusion that
if i had to pick 1 rep range to stick to for the rest of my life it would be 6-8, as i believe it gives you the best of both worlds i.e. strength and mass gains.
what do you feel is the best rep range for maximum mass or mass and stength gains?
and why?
for example i came across this interesting study :
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.
• Campos GE,
• Luecke TJ,
• Wendeln HK,
• Toma K,
• Hagerman FC,
• Murray TF,
• Ragg KE,
• Ratamess NA,
• Kraemer WJ,
• Staron RS.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.
Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".
[Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]
muscle mass increase:
High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)
Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
pre = 4155 post = 4701 (~13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5238 post = 6090 (~16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4556 post = 5798 (~27.3% increase)
Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
pre = 4869 post = 5475 (~12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5615 post = 6903 (~22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4926 post = 6171 (~25.3% increase)
PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
now the low and intermediate reps are similar in gains with the low reps having the slight edge - however bare in mind the low reps also gained more strenth than the intermediate reps.
what do you all think?
-
i agree :D
-
not reading all that
-
its about time GB started sourcing legit scientific works for it's knowledge transfer.
the work done by laura, et al also looked at maximising the number of times a weight traversed the point of maximum moment in the rep range- meaning more work per unit energy.
that work also was based alot on the neurology of lifting and making the most of rep patterns before changing to stimulate growth. for the drug free of us, this kind of evidence is invaluable. For the drug users, just take more or different drugs to blast that plateau.
from my research of work done on the application of weight training, 2 things stand out. 1. making the most of your energy, and 2. giving the brain enough time to adapt and learn a rep pattern before subtly changing it to another.
for 1. when we talk "energy" we are referring to the work able to be done. So the moment generated by the weight on the lever is key. and 2. staying with the same rep pattern, or changing it too much, too often, is counterproductive. this has been proven in not just weight training, but other skill tasks.
-
its about time GB started sourcing legit scientific works for it's knowledge transfer.
the work done by laura, et al also looked at maximising the number of times a weight traversed the point of maximum moment in the rep range- meaning more work per unit energy.
that work also was based alot on the neurology of lifting and making the most of rep patterns before changing to stimulate growth. for the drug free of us, this kind of evidence is invaluable. For the drug users, just take more or different drugs to blast that plateau.
from my research of work done on the application of weight training, 2 things stand out. 1. making the most of your energy, and 2. giving the brain enough time to adapt and learn a rep pattern before subtly changing it to another.
for 1. when we talk "energy" we are referring to the work able to be done. So the moment generated by the weight on the lever is key. and 2. staying with the same rep pattern, or changing it too much, too often, is counterproductive. this has been proven in not just weight training, but other skill tasks.
can you post a link to the study?
stu are you talking about a type of xrep/partial rep at the most mechanically advantageous point of a rep or the point a muscle strructually strongest ?
-
i would like to try something different on getbig, have a proper bodybuilding discussion about rep ranges, and number of sets.
i have read a few studies etc that compare rep rangs etc and have come to the conclusion that
if i had to pick 1 rep range to stick to for the rest of my life it would be 6-8, as i believe it gives you the best of both worlds i.e. strength and mass gains.
what do you feel is the best rep range for maximum mass or mass and stength gains?
and why?
for example i came across this interesting study :
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.
• Campos GE,
• Luecke TJ,
• Wendeln HK,
• Toma K,
• Hagerman FC,
• Murray TF,
• Ragg KE,
• Ratamess NA,
• Kraemer WJ,
• Staron RS.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.
Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".
[Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]
muscle mass increase:
High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)
Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
pre = 4155 post = 4701 (~13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5238 post = 6090 (~16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4556 post = 5798 (~27.3% increase)
Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
pre = 4869 post = 5475 (~12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5615 post = 6903 (~22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4926 post = 6171 (~25.3% increase)
PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
now the low and intermediate reps are similar in gains with the low reps having the slight edge - however bare in mind the low reps also gained more strenth than the intermediate reps.
what do you all think?
Wow! talk about over information. How about this? Just get under the bar and push it till it burns. Nothing else needs to go into the thought process here, really.
-
i think all the rep ranges are useful and for best results you must cycle your training to go in phases of rep ranges..
-
No universal answer to this question, everybody is different.
-
words words words.............
5 - 8, problem solved
-
Wow! talk about over information. How about this? Just get under the bar and push it till it burns. Nothing else needs to go into the thought process here, really.
Shit, I was just watching "A Fistful Of Dollars".
-
start at 10 finish at 6
-
can you post a link to the study?
stu are you talking about a type of xrep/partial rep at the most mechanically advantageous point of a rep or the point a muscle strructually strongest ?
basically yes- which is why alot of the old timers arrived at partials- cause they worked. But again , like evetything else, they work for a while.
the concept is that the maximum moment is when the lever is at its longest from the pivot. this is the midpoint in bicep curls for instance, about 1/3 way up for bench presses etc. If you work those points when you have the most energy, then you stimulate the most growth in the shortest time.
i.e. you might rep between full lock and full down in bench press. The key is to subtly change the rep pattern, not drastically, and not too regularly. About 6 weeks seems long enough. the working range goes between 6-8 up to 20+.
i dont have a link im sorry- i read a bunch of books on it whilst at uni back in the day. There are many parallels to mentzer's work infact. Which in turn parallels what strength coaches and other athletic professionals are doing.
one thing for sure is that 6-8 reps...period...doesnt work.
12-15, period..doesnt work either..
8-12, nope.
take drugs and do anything and youll grow...yep.
the latter makes it easy for people to draw conclusions that arent there, which is why arnold arrived at some good stuff- he wasnt able to get his hands on everything and anything in his early years.
-
I have recently abandoned ego completely and begun using giant sets with 10-12 RM weights. I'm happy with how it's going and haven't had this level of DOMS in awhile. Most noticable area of improvement is chest which has always been a weakness for me. Least improved is back which grew well with heavy[ish] 5-8 RM training in the past, but hasn't improved much at all for the last several months.
Every third week, I'm going heavy with 5x5 to note the effect on strength since I seemed to stall quick with standard 5x5 training. I've only done one 5x5 week so far though, so it's too early to report the effects.
I'm eating a moderate calorie surplus with some junk. Most extra cals are from increased fats.
-
Wow! talk about over information. How about this? Just get under the bar and push it till it burns. Nothing else needs to go into the thought process here, really.
wow, what an insightful answer. i wish i had spoken to you years ago ::)
talk about owning yourself.
here's a hint why you shouldn't do that - read that study.
it shows that reps around 5, stimulate more muscle growth and greater stength than just going for the burn.
-
not reading all that
You're not alone.
-
pollux - where the fvck is that ronnie cycle you promised to post about a year ago >:( ;D
-
pollux - where the fvck is that ronnie cycle you promised to post about a year ago >:( ;D
Oh shit! The question arises again!
I thought you pimps forgot about that! LOL! :D
-
the best rep range is what works best for you.
-
perhaps i was mistaken in getbigs ability to debate the scientific merit in choosing a specific rep range.
can someone agree or disagree with my statement, and provide a study or personal reasons why you feel a specific rep range is best.
to all that feel using all rep ranges is best - you are wrong if we are talking strickly for bodybuilding purposes ( based on that study i posted) - if you disagree please post studies to back up your beliefs.
both points of view can add to our colective knowledge, and hence improve us as bodybuilders and reasoned thinkers.
-
perhaps i was mistaken in getbigs ability to debate the scientific merit in choosing a specific rep range.
can someone agree or disagree with my statement, and provide a study or personal reasons why you feel a specific rep range is best.
to all that feel using all rep ranges is best - you are wrong if we are talking strickly for bodybuilding purposes ( based on that study i posted) - if you disagree please post studies to back up your beliefs.
both points of view can add to our colective knowledge, and hence improve us as bodybuilders and reasoned thinkers.
IME there's a lot of truth to the saying that the best routine is the one you're not doing. Looking back, I wish I'd moved away from a particular routine or rep range after even as little as 4-6 weeks when progress stalled instead of sticking with it because I'd read something that said it was best and trying to break plateaus with calories.
That's one of the problems with a lot of studies. It seems a lot of them use "untrained males" whereas I'd guess most of us have either grown stale or are even overtrained. Good thread tho. Hope it develops.
-
wow, what an insightful answer. i wish i had spoken to you years ago ::)
talk about owning yourself.
here's a hint why you shouldn't do that - read that study.
it shows that reps around 5, stimulate more muscle growth and greater stength than just going for the burn.
I know all about reps. Anything around five will promote strength before it promotes size. Higher reps (volume) is what will build more size. Use a combination of both and there you go. I just summed it up for you with 19 words vrs your short novel with %'s and bullshit. ;)
-
i would like to try something different on getbig, have a proper bodybuilding discussion about rep ranges, and number of sets.
i have read a few studies etc that compare rep rangs etc and have come to the conclusion that
if i had to pick 1 rep range to stick to for the rest of my life it would be 6-8, as i believe it gives you the best of both worlds i.e. strength and mass gains.
what do you feel is the best rep range for maximum mass or mass and stength gains?
and why?
for example i came across this interesting study :
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.
• Campos GE,
• Luecke TJ,
• Wendeln HK,
• Toma K,
• Hagerman FC,
• Murray TF,
• Ragg KE,
• Ratamess NA,
• Kraemer WJ,
• Staron RS.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.
Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".
[Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]
muscle mass increase:
High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)
Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
pre = 4155 post = 4701 (~13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5238 post = 6090 (~16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4556 post = 5798 (~27.3% increase)
Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
pre = 4869 post = 5475 (~12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5615 post = 6903 (~22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4926 post = 6171 (~25.3% increase)
PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
now the low and intermediate reps are similar in gains with the low reps having the slight edge - however bare in mind the low reps also gained more strenth than the intermediate reps.
what do you all think?
epic cut and paste.
-
epic cut and paste.
You're busting on someone for cutting and pasting a relevant when Adam does it with greater frequency? Both are doing it when appropriate.....and both do not plagiarize (to my knowledge).
-
i would like to try something different on getbig, have a proper bodybuilding discussion about rep ranges, and number of sets.
i have read a few studies etc that compare rep rangs etc and have come to the conclusion that
if i had to pick 1 rep range to stick to for the rest of my life it would be 6-8, as i believe it gives you the best of both worlds i.e. strength and mass gains.
what do you feel is the best rep range for maximum mass or mass and stength gains?
and why?
for example i came across this interesting study :
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.
• Campos GE,
• Luecke TJ,
• Wendeln HK,
• Toma K,
• Hagerman FC,
• Murray TF,
• Ragg KE,
• Ratamess NA,
• Kraemer WJ,
• Staron RS.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.
Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".
[Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]
muscle mass increase:
High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)
Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
pre = 4155 post = 4701 (~13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5238 post = 6090 (~16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4556 post = 5798 (~27.3% increase)
Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
pre = 4869 post = 5475 (~12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5615 post = 6903 (~22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4926 post = 6171 (~25.3% increase)
PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
now the low and intermediate reps are similar in gains with the low reps having the slight edge - however bare in mind the low reps also gained more strenth than the intermediate reps.
what do you all think?
8,3294723462 reps with a spotter on the last 2,32942.
-
I know all about reps. Anything around five will promote strength before it promotes size. Higher reps (volume) is what will build more size. Use a combination of both and there you go. I just summed it up for you with 19 words vrs your short novel with %'s and bullshit. ;)
can you read you fvcking clown - thats is NOT what that study says. fvck off >:(
meltdown ;D
-
epic cut and paste.
bullshit - i designed, funded and ran that study myself ::)
go back to eating burgers fatman.
-
bullshit - i designed, funded and ran that study myself ::)
go back to eating burgers fatman.
you could always post a picture of yourself looking better than me to really own me, whaddya say? :D
-
you could always post a picture of yourself looking better than me to really own me, whaddya say? :D
i look better than this fatman
::)
-
i look better than this fatman
::)
only problem is that's not me, why don't you post your picture?
-
only problem is that's not me, why don't you post your picture?
and that wasn't your trailer either ::)
-
and that wasn't your trailer either ::)
this is me, now you post your picture.
-
this is me, now you post your picture.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
yes i will, straight after you post a pic in clear light, in front of a clear mirror/ or have someone take a clear pic of you. Not through a partial reflection off a dirty window and grill ::)
please remember to have a card saying 'i am squadfather'.
-
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
yes i will, straight after you post a pic in clear light, in front of a clear mirror/ or have someone take a clear pic of you. Not through a partial reflection off a dirty window and grill ::)
please remember to have a card saying 'i am squadfather'.
hahahaha, just waht i thought, another pusssy.
-
hahahaha, just waht i thought, another pusssy.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahaha just what i thought, no comment ::)
i'l be waiting for that pic, fatman.
-
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha just what i thought, no comment ::)
i'l be waiting for that pic, fatman.
the pics are posted above you, your turn. :D
-
the pics are posted above you, your turn. :D
really, where i don;t see any pics in clear light, in front of a clear mirror/ or that someone has taken of you, Not through a partial reflection off a dirty window and grill. ::)
oh and you claim these pics are not you, well why are they both the same fat fvck doing the same arm hiding the jelly roll pose ::)
epic denial
bye fatman.
-
really, where i don;t see any pics in clear light, in front of a clear mirror/ or that someone has taken of you, Not through a partial reflection off a dirty window and grill. ::)
oh and you claim these pics are not you, well why are they both the same fat fvck doing the same arm hiding the jelly roll pose ::)
epic denial
bye fatman.
hahahaha, ok, i'll just assume that you're too chickenshit to post your picture, no big deal, see ya. :D
-
explosive concentrics have been shown to result in the greatest recruiment of muscular fibers. that combined with low rep ranges is probably the best for hypertrophy. Sorry. along with controlled negatives before the explosive concentric. Push as fast and as hard as you can regardless of feeling.
-
explosive concentrics have been shown to result in the greatest recruiment of muscular fibers. that combined with low rep ranges is probably the best for hypertrophy. Sorry. along with controlled negatives before the explosive concentric. Push as fast and as hard as you can regardless of feeling.
yes i agree.
in fact with protein synthesis rates being elevated when lifting anything above 65%, you could argue that doing max speed lifting at 65% would produce as much growth as standard speed reps at heavier weights.
-
this abstract show why a workout routine that focusses on 'all' rep ranges is wrong for bodybuilding purposes:
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 38(11):1939-1944, November 2006.
BAAR, KEITH
Abstract:
The classic work of Hickson demonstrated that training for both strength and endurance at the same time results in less adaptation compared with training for either one alone: this has been described as the concurrent training effect. Generally, resistance exercise results in an increase in muscle mass, and endurance exercise results in an increase in muscle capillary density, mitochondrial protein, fatty acid-oxidation enzymes, and more metabolically efficient forms of contractile and regulatory proteins. In the 25 yr since Hickson's initial description, there have been a number of important advances in the understanding of the molecular regulation of muscle's adaptation to exercise that may enable explanation of this phenomenon at the molecular level. As will be described in depth in the following four papers, two serine/threonine protein kinases in particular play a particularly important role in this process. Protein kinase B/Akt can both activate protein synthesis and decrease protein breakdown, thus leading to hypertrophy, and AMP-activated protein kinase can increase mitochondrial protein, glucose transport, and a number of other factors that result in an endurance phenotype. Not only are PKB and AMPK central to the generation of the resistance and endurance phenotypes, they also block each other's downstream signaling. The consequence of these interactions is a direct molecular blockade hindering the development of the concurrent training phenotype. A better understanding of the activation of these molecular pathways after exercise and how they interact will allow development of better training programs to maximize both strength and endurance.
(C)2006The American College of Sports Medicine
-
explosive concentrics have been shown to result in the greatest recruiment of muscular fibers. that combined with low rep ranges is probably the best for hypertrophy. Sorry. along with controlled negatives before the explosive concentric. Push as fast and as hard as you can regardless of feeling.
So as fast as possible on the cocentric and 2-3 second eccentric?
-
this abstract show why a workout routine that focusses on 'all' rep ranges is wrong for bodybuilding purposes:
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 38(11):1939-1944, November 2006.
BAAR, KEITH
Abstract:
The classic work of Hickson demonstrated that training for both strength and endurance at the same time results in less adaptation compared with training for either one alone: this has been described as the concurrent training effect. Generally, resistance exercise results in an increase in muscle mass, and endurance exercise results in an increase in muscle capillary density, mitochondrial protein, fatty acid-oxidation enzymes, and more metabolically efficient forms of contractile and regulatory proteins. In the 25 yr since Hickson's initial description, there have been a number of important advances in the understanding of the molecular regulation of muscle's adaptation to exercise that may enable explanation of this phenomenon at the molecular level. As will be described in depth in the following four papers, two serine/threonine protein kinases in particular play a particularly important role in this process. Protein kinase B/Akt can both activate protein synthesis and decrease protein breakdown, thus leading to hypertrophy, and AMP-activated protein kinase can increase mitochondrial protein, glucose transport, and a number of other factors that result in an endurance phenotype. Not only are PKB and AMPK central to the generation of the resistance and endurance phenotypes, they also block each other's downstream signaling. The consequence of these interactions is a direct molecular blockade hindering the development of the concurrent training phenotype. A better understanding of the activation of these molecular pathways after exercise and how they interact will allow development of better training programs to maximize both strength and endurance.
(C)2006The American College of Sports Medicine
they are differntiating resistence and endurance. In the actual paper are they training for endurance via cardio vascular training or with high rep ranges because the wording appears to indicate they are comparing weights vs endurance training.
-
5x5 is awesome.
Most people start too heavy and dont have the patience.
70% of your 1rm for 5x5 and add 5lbs a workout will yield fantastic gains
-
they are differntiating resistence and endurance. In the actual paper are they training for endurance via cardio vascular training or with high rep ranges because the wording appears to indicate they are comparing weights vs endurance training.
i have not read the full papers mentioned.
i would assume the are referring to endurance via high rep weights and not cardio - as they are comparing molecular regulation of muscle adaptation - it would be crazy to compare say running/jogging with squats ???
however even if it was cardio endurance - any rep range over 15 with weight also produces AMP-activated protein kinase and the various other factors mentioned i believe it is still a valid study to explain my reasoning.
-
perhaps i was mistaken in getbigs ability to debate the scientific merit in choosing a specific rep range.
can someone agree or disagree with my statement, and provide a study or personal reasons why you feel a specific rep range is best.
to all that feel using all rep ranges is best - you are wrong if we are talking strickly for bodybuilding purposes ( based on that study i posted) - if you disagree please post studies to back up your beliefs.
both points of view can add to our colective knowledge, and hence improve us as bodybuilders and reasoned thinkers.
part of the issue is that most studies dont have a long enough timeline to show the efficacy of fixed rep pattern and range programs versus evolving routines. They also dont generally contain already well trained specimens as they need to be sure of a double blind approach in order to make any conclusion.
without any other prejudice, the 6-8 rep range is certainly where hypertrophy occurs. However specific adaptation to imposed demand means that over time, less and less recruitment of fibres results as the movements get learned and the neuropathways become more efficient. There is a great body of evidence that hyperplasia occurs, but it is controversial, yet anecdotally supported through physical testing.
For the drug free of us, the conclusion that 6-8 reps is best is very debatable. HIT ala mentzer is also of little value due to its stress on the nervous system.
That is why a method of more work at a sub maximal nervous intensity works well, cycling nervous response without blasting it to bits.
the biggest problem is a trainer's psychii. most people cant swallow the pride pill and work with weights that suit rep ranges. When they do, they will experience a staggering improvement from their first session to one 6 weeks later with a different rep pattern and range.
when they coome full circle, and end up back to a "standard" 6-8 reps, they at first will experience difficulty, but will end their cycle ahead of where they were before. it really does work, ive experienced it myself, and seen others, but that is only a small sample of course- so cant validate it without subjectivity. Laura's work seemed to support it also.
the reason why laura's wasnt popular was, in my opinion, because it meant weight trainers really needed to swallow that pride. 90%+ of weight trainers couldnt do that.
-
I don't think there is one rep range that is universal for everyone as the best mass and strength builder. For me, I train by feel, if I feel like going heavy that day, I go heavy! If I want a good burn, I lighten the weight up and bust out as many reps as possible, sometimes going up to 100 reps if I'm getting ready for a show. As long as nutrition is consistant you will either grow or get cut up no matter what as long as your in the weight room busting your ass and not overthinking it.
-
i agree we need more long term studies, and on natural trainers.
however the thinking that SAID means diminishing gains at a specific rep range has never made sense to me. ( although i have experienced the phenomenon)
for instance the human has always responded to any situation with 2 responses adapt or die, it is in our history.
when we lift a load say in the 6-8 rep range, yes after a while it becomes easier and gains stop. SAID at work, however an increase in weight applies a new demand, so gains should start again ( given proper nutrition), again its on our genes to adapt or die.
When we are babies and grow, where is SAID at work there? we eat more and more and keep growing. i realise this is a very simple way of looking at things, but the human body has proven time and again it adapts - calouses on the hands from constant lifting, thicker/courser facial hair from shaving, tanning from he sun, etc we always adapt. The responce to weight lifting should be no different.
Studies show the heavier the load the greater the MPS responce. However clearly 1 rep maxes are not producing ronnie coleman sized monsters so something is faulty in this model, unless the cns stimulation produced by 1 rep max is so great that calories expended to regenerate atp and refresh the cns effects protein synthesis rates/calories required to build muscle however this is a strech indeed.
Volume clearly play a large part. Studies show that muscle mass is also directly proportional to volume, with a threshold at somepoint that giving diminishing returns.
in my opinion there is a universal model for muscle or strength gain in all people - it is lifting a heavier weight regardless of muscle type in the individual - the 6-8 reps just seems to be a sweet spot, between cns/mps stimulation.To change to a lighter/higher rep range just to change things up, does not make sense - not if studies show it provides less results.
also muscle type can change to cope with demand - so even if someone had primarily type I fibres, lifting havy weight long enough does cause their body to change the fibre type.
that study i posted shows the low rep and mod reps were close for mps - but clearly strength gains will be higher in the lower reps, so it gets the edge in my opinion.
I have decided apon 6-8 however as i am aware that many people, including myself have experienced strength gains at 1-5 reps, but not a lot of mass. again perhaps this was stimulating maximum possible mps, but people were undereating, or perhaps it was simply under the volume threshold for maximum mps - either way the slightly higher reps reduces cns burnout, increases volume and the resulting hormone responce.
regardless, there is also a limit to the length of time mps lasts - studies show 48-72 hours. So optimal frequency per muscle group points at every 2nd-3rd day.
i am rambling slightly here, but i would welcome opinions on this. The more we talk the more we learn.
what is lauras work? i have not heard of this?
i am aware if 5x5, but i have not ever seen pictures of anyone make tremendous body transformation using it. strength gains certainly.
If you believe skip la cour, jeff willet, and jrod are natural, then 5x5 does work, as it is similar in rep/set recomendations as max-ot.
agains i welcome thoughts and opinions on this rambling post ;D
-
i agree we need more long term studies, and on natural trainers.
however the thinking that SAID means diminishing gains at a specific rep range has never made sense to me. ( although i have experienced the phenomenon)
for instance the human has always responded to any situation with 2 responses adapt or die, it is in our history.
when we lift a load say in the 6-8 rep range, yes after a while it becomes easier and gains stop. SAID at work, however an increase in weight applies a new demand, so gains should start again ( given proper nutrition), again its on our genes to adapt or die.
When we are babies and grow, where is SAID at work there? we eat more and more and keep growing. i realise this is a very simple way of looking at things, but the human body has proven time and again it adapts - calouses on the hands from constant lifting, thicker/courser facial hair from shaving, tanning from he sun, etc we always adapt. The responce to weight lifting should be no different.
Studies show the heavier the load the greater the MPS responce. However clearly 1 rep maxes are not producing ronnie coleman sized monsters so something is faulty in this model, unless the cns stimulation produced by 1 rep max is so great that calories expended to regenerate atp and refresh the cns effects protein synthesis rates/calories required to build muscle however this is a strech indeed.
Volume clearly play a large part. Studies show that muscle mass is also directly proportional to volume, with a threshold at somepoint that giving diminishing returns.
in my opinion there is a universal model for muscle or strength gain in all people - it is lifting a heavier weight regardless of muscle type in the individual - the 6-8 reps just seems to be a sweet spot, between cns/mps stimulation.To change to a lighter/higher rep range just to change things up, does not make sense - not if studies show it provides less results.
also muscle type can change to cope with demand - so even if someone had primarily type I fibres, lifting havy weight long enough does cause their body to change the fibre type.
that study i posted shows the low rep and mod reps were close for mps - but clearly strength gains will be higher in the lower reps, so it gets the edge in my opinion.
I have decided apon 6-8 however as i am aware that many people, including myself have experienced strength gains at 1-5 reps, but not a lot of mass. again perhaps this was stimulating maximum possible mps, but people were undereating, or perhaps it was simply under the volume threshold for maximum mps - either way the slightly higher reps reduces cns burnout, increases volume and the resulting hormone responce.
regardless, there is also a limit to the length of time mps lasts - studies show 48-72 hours. So optimal frequency per muscle group points at every 2nd-3rd day.
i am rambling slightly here, but i would welcome opinions on this. The more we talk the more we learn.
what is lauras work? i have not heard of this?
i am aware if 5x5, but i have not ever seen pictures of anyone make tremendous body transformation using it. strength gains certainly.
If you believe skip la cour, jeff willet, and jrod are natural, then 5x5 does work, as it is similar in rep/set recomendations as max-ot.
agains i welcome thoughts and opinions on this rambling post ;D
I buily mu cureent size using mainly 5x5 but also strength routines made by my friend who trains me
-
i agree we need more long term studies, and on natural trainers.
however the thinking that SAID means diminishing gains at a specific rep range has never made sense to me. ( although i have experienced the phenomenon)
for instance the human has always responded to any situation with 2 responses adapt or die, it is in our history.
when we lift a load say in the 6-8 rep range, yes after a while it becomes easier and gains stop. SAID at work, however an increase in weight applies a new demand, so gains should start again ( given proper nutrition), again its on our genes to adapt or die.
actually this is incorrect. Thats how general adaptation occurs. What happens is that you make initial gains (adaptation to the imposed load), then muscular hypertrophy diminishes as the recruitment of neuropathways also gets trained and as a result start to cut back on the number and intensity of the signals sent to the muscle. in the end it actually becomes HARDER to make muscular gains as you're not only combatting hypertrophy, but also neurological barriers.
the key is the 2 words in SAID. "Specific" and "imposed". when its specific, you are eliminating one variable to make the most of another- in this case muscular response. the imposed bit means that you are imposing a task that is unfamiliar and requires learning.
juggling is a good example of this. see if you can juggle 3 balls. its very hard at first and you want to give up. after a few days you can do it, and after a few weeks its pretty easy. Now add another ball, or try overhand..whatever.. its really really hard again. if you stay with 3 balls for a long period of time its very difficult to get much better.
the brain recognises the task and recruits less "effort" to achieve it. That is the fight or flight response. It is adapting to achieve the task with minimal effort- making other pathways available just in case they're needed.
So, its not the increase in weight that generates the demand, its the shift in the pattern moreso. you would recognise this when you hit a plateau. Increasing the weight does nothing but make it more difficult. How many times have you seen the guy at the gym stuck at 3 sets of 10 at 220 on the bench..for years. and yet he seems to be trying the same amount every time.
as naturals its a barrier that can be the limit.
the baby example doesnt apply as its got GH and hormones on its side. facial hair doesnt apply either as thats a myth...- to do with cutting the hair at a point along its length that is thicker than the tip, tanning is dead skin and melatonin..all not appropriate examples.
the issue with said is that its not easily understood by its target audience, so it becomes branded as not working. people then make various arbitrary "adjustments" and so on.
i could write a thesis to show examples...but it does work. if you're interested it all ties up beautifully but you need to interpret what is written literally.
Tim
-
I don't think there is one rep range that is universal for everyone as the best mass and strength builder. For me, I train by feel, if I feel like going heavy that day, I go heavy! If I want a good burn, I lighten the weight up and bust out as many reps as possible, sometimes going up to 100 reps if I'm getting ready for a show. As long as nutrition is consistant you will either grow or get cut up no matter what as long as your in the weight room busting your ass and not overthinking it.
best post on the subject. every kind of muscle contraction will stimulate hypertrophy. whats important is consistancy... going back week after week month after month year after year. and of course genetics. work hard, work often, do what you can to maximize benefits off of your efforts (diet drugs rest supplements etc etc).
-
wow, what an insightful answer. i wish i had spoken to you years ago ::)
talk about owning yourself.
here's a hint why you shouldn't do that - read that study.
it shows that reps around 5, stimulate more muscle growth and greater stength than just going for the burn.
People who site study after study tend to be small...why is that?
-
part of the issue is that most studies dont have a long enough timeline to show the efficacy of fixed rep pattern and range programs versus evolving routines. They also dont generally contain already well trained specimens as they need to be sure of a double blind approach in order to make any conclusion.
without any other prejudice, the 6-8 rep range is certainly where hypertrophy occurs. However specific adaptation to imposed demand means that over time, less and less recruitment of fibres results as the movements get learned and the neuropathways become more efficient. There is a great body of evidence that hyperplasia occurs, but it is controversial, yet anecdotally supported through physical testing.
For the drug free of us, the conclusion that 6-8 reps is best is very debatable. HIT ala mentzer is also of little value due to its stress on the nervous system.
That is why a method of more work at a sub maximal nervous intensity works well, cycling nervous response without blasting it to bits.
the biggest problem is a trainer's psychii. most people cant swallow the pride pill and work with weights that suit rep ranges. When they do, they will experience a staggering improvement from their first session to one 6 weeks later with a different rep pattern and range.
when they coome full circle, and end up back to a "standard" 6-8 reps, they at first will experience difficulty, but will end their cycle ahead of where they were before. it really does work, ive experienced it myself, and seen others, but that is only a small sample of course- so cant validate it without subjectivity. Laura's work seemed to support it also.
the reason why laura's wasnt popular was, in my opinion, because it meant weight trainers really needed to swallow that pride. 90%+ of weight trainers couldnt do that.
Explain what you mean please.....as in, give an example of a workout or how you would progress over 6-weeks
-
if you complicate bodybuilding you will never get anywhere youll just get injured
keep it simple its a simple sport
-
best post on the subject. every kind of muscle contraction will stimulate hypertrophy. whats important is consistancy... going back week after week month after month year after year. and of course genetics. work hard, work often, do what you can to maximize benefits off of your efforts (diet drugs rest supplements etc etc).
actually once you get your head around it it isnt that difficult. The point is that the original poster wants to maximise the effort- i.e. not wait for eventual gains through attrition.
once you can sort the theory, then you can apply a pretty basic approach. Most elite athletes let the coaches do this work.
-
if you complicate bodybuilding you will never get anywhere youll just get injured
keep it simple its a simple sport
unfortunately the human body and how it reacts is complicated. This is why something basic is not optimal and why most drug free-ers become stuck- or need to resort to ultra strict lifestyles. itd be nice to be able to apply something really simple and have the body respond. It is much like how drugs work in the body. Initial response to something new, then quick adaptation over a number of mechanisms to arrive at a point where- if you continued to take that drug, its effect is barely felt, AND if you remove it, the body freaks out.
what this technique is trying to accomplish is to minimise the brain's impact in the scheme and place the stress on the muscular system.
the published work laura did used quite high rep schemes for a purpose- they yield the best work per unit time.
over 6 weeks the rep pattern wouldnt change at all.
over a year it may change subtly every 6 weeks. over 2 years it may come full circle. when you arrive back at the rep pattern you started at you may start slightly below where you finished, but 6 weeks later you will be significantly ahead.
the psychological benefits are under-rated also. When you know your "best lift", you approach it as a form of limit. If you dont, or its difficuult to know exactly what you should be lifting, you tend to lift without any expectation.
additional stressors in laura's work included the effect of reversing direction mid rep. This is well known to be a huge stressor on a muscle. All these little intensifiers- as well as mid set static holds and so on are included and placed in there for the reasons we've been discussing.
an example of one 6 week routine to the next might be a routine based on a 5x5x5x5 full, half up, half down, full rep scheme, then move to a 4x5x6x7 full, half up, half down, full scheme for instance.
the next 6 weeks might introduce static holds, to the 5x5x5x5, the next to the 4x5x6x7.
the rest periods are very short..another key.
-
Good thread. Good contributers.
-
actually this is incorrect. Thats how general adaptation occurs. What happens is that you make initial gains (adaptation to the imposed load), then muscular hypertrophy diminishes as the recruitment of neuropathways also gets trained and as a result start to cut back on the number and intensity of the signals sent to the muscle. in the end it actually becomes HARDER to make muscular gains as you're not only combatting hypertrophy, but also neurological barriers.
the key is the 2 words in SAID. "Specific" and "imposed". when its specific, you are eliminating one variable to make the most of another- in this case muscular response. the imposed bit means that you are imposing a task that is unfamiliar and requires learning.
juggling is a good example of this. see if you can juggle 3 balls. its very hard at first and you want to give up. after a few days you can do it, and after a few weeks its pretty easy. Now add another ball, or try overhand..whatever.. its really really hard again. if you stay with 3 balls for a long period of time its very difficult to get much better.
the brain recognises the task and recruits less "effort" to achieve it. That is the fight or flight response. It is adapting to achieve the task with minimal effort- making other pathways available just in case they're needed.
So, its not the increase in weight that generates the demand, its the shift in the pattern moreso. you would recognise this when you hit a plateau. Increasing the weight does nothing but make it more difficult. How many times have you seen the guy at the gym stuck at 3 sets of 10 at 220 on the bench..for years. and yet he seems to be trying the same amount every time.
as naturals its a barrier that can be the limit.
the baby example doesnt apply as its got GH and hormones on its side. facial hair doesnt apply either as thats a myth...- to do with cutting the hair at a point along its length that is thicker than the tip, tanning is dead skin and melatonin..all not appropriate examples.
the issue with said is that its not easily understood by its target audience, so it becomes branded as not working. people then make various arbitrary "adjustments" and so on.
i could write a thesis to show examples...but it does work. if you're interested it all ties up beautifully but you need to interpret what is written literally.
Tim
its ok tim, i completely understand how said works. i just always had a problem with it from a human ability to adapt point of view. i simply do not like the thought that our bodies try to stop us adapting.
like i said a have experienced the dreaded plateu and used periodisation to overcome it, sp i am aware how to get around it to some extent.
like you and goudy said sometimes you have to swallow the pill and work with lower weights to see you flourish.
i always liked the milo and the bull example - where if the weight increase is small enough and you get adequate calories everyday, there should be no reason you cannot keep getting stronger/bigger.
if only it worked like that in the real world :D
-
I can chime in with my personal experience. What works best for me is 6-10 reps for mass. I also tried 3x20 reps and 3x15 reps and it didn't do much for strength or mass. What works great for breaking strength plateaus is HST.
-
People who site study after study tend to be small...why is that?
i am not small - i assure you.
that does not mean i am happy with whasize i do have however.
if you stop trying to learn new things and improve yourself - then take a look in the mirror, chances are that that is the best you will ever be.
I can chime in with my personal experience. What works best for me is 6-10 reps for mass. I also tried 3x20 reps and 3x15 reps and it didn't do much for strength or mass. What works great for breaking strength plateaus is HST.
i tried hst for a long while. it gave me good mass gains, but zero strengh gains. it burnt me out, and i constantly had colds/flu etc while doing it. in fact i was so drained from hst that i stopped working out competely for 6 months.
disco-stu and wavelength - do you/did you post on the hst board?
-
i tried hst for a long while. it gave me good mass gains, but zero strengh gains. it burnt me out, and i constantly had colds/flu etc while doing it. in fact i was so drained from hst that i stopped working out competely for 6 months.
Not my experience. However, I adapted it somewhat:
- I did 12/8/4/1/rest/light, 2 weeks each. I never did 15 reps, since I already knew it didn't work for me.
- I only did HST for the big basic movements. All other exercises I continued as usual (split training, 6-10 reps).
- 1 rep I only did on bench and squat.
disco-stu and wavelength - do you/did you post on the hst board?
Nopes.
-
FP.
unfortunately you've missed the point completely.
you just do your thing mate. good luck.
it is clear that you do not understand SAID.
you think you do, but you are amongst many who also think they get it. i tried to explain it.
i suggest you re-read the posts and interpret them literally..i.e. exactly as written, without any personal spin.
it takes alot of effort to explain this at first, so when, after all that, someone summarises it incorrectly and displays that they havent grasped the fundamentals it is very frustrating.
your comments about plateauing and hst etc show that nothing written throughout this thread has sunk in.
-
can you read you fvcking clown - thats is NOT what that study says. fvck off >:(
meltdown ;D
I can read but not your short novel, it looks from a short glance to be filled with %'s and bullshit.
GO POUND SAND, DICKBEAT
-
FP.
unfortunately you've missed the point completely.
you just do your thing mate. good luck.
it is clear that you do not understand SAID.
you think you do, but you are amongst many who also think they get it. i tried to explain it.
i suggest you re-read the posts and interpret them literally..i.e. exactly as written, without any personal spin.
it takes alot of effort to explain this at first, so when, after all that, someone summarises it incorrectly and displays that they havent grasped the fundamentals it is very frustrating.
your comments about plateauing and hst etc show that nothing written throughout this thread has sunk in.
Tim, i think i have not made my posts very clear, i was not talking about SAID when i was talking about the human ability to adapt. i was talking about the ability to adapt in general. Like i said i understand SAID completely, and yes i too could write essays on it, but that would get us nowhere. you are clearly annoyed that you feel i have not read or understood your posts. I have.
your comments on explaining what literally mean - are childish at best.
your comments that my plateauing and experience with hst show i do not understand SAID are beyond silly.
Or are you claiming you have never plateaued? and have managed to use your Omnipotent knowledge and intricate understanding of SAID to avoid that which has plagued Olympic strength athletes and powerlifters for centuries.
you need to calm down, and stop confusing a persons knowledge with their ability to express themself through the written word - i have been rushing through these posts.
i appreciate your participation in this thread, and your thourough explanations.
i would also like to continue it, although without the snide comments. I would not like this to turn into a war of words, when it could turn into much much more.
i assure you for all future posts i will take due care, and concentration in writing exactly what i mean.
-
my apologies FP. i was a bit harsh.
my bad.
fwiw im not saying this is the solution to all things weight training, nor a foolproof way to avoid plateauing.
what it is is a way to combat the issues encountered by everyday weight trainers and athletes as it addresses all the aspects that contribute to sticking points, continual progress and psychological issues.
-
epic cut and paste.
Don't worry Dave you will be able to cut and paste too after Maggie is done cutting coupons with the scissors...
-
If i get a bit of time ill read this properly...getting very dense v quick and dont wanna change subject of misinterpret it when i havent read it
-
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60. Epub 2002 Aug 15. Links
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.
Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".
after actually reading the full study, something the OP should of done, it is clear that a mix of high and low reps would be the best for muscle gains. The high rep group could perform more reps, had better aerobic power and greater lactic acid buildup or time to exhaustion. All of these are beneficial to hypertrophy although not the main factors. True the low/int group had more hypertrophy but high reps combined with the low reps for improved aerobic and lactic acid threshold and muscular endurance. This along with heavy weight would in theory lead to increased endurance with heavyweight, which in theory could not be found in the low rep individuals. Both muscular strength and endurance contribute to hypertrophy.
-
The control of skeletal muscle mass is also markedly mediated by the regulation of transduction pathways that promote the synthesis and/or the degradation of proteins. Insulin-like growth factor-I plays a key role in this balance by activating the Akt/tuberous sclerosis complex 2/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. Stimulation of this pathway leads to the concomitant activation of initiation and elongation factors resulting in the elevation of protein translation and the downregulation of ubiquitin proteasome components through Forkhead-box O transcription factors.
=
high reps for the WIN
-
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60. Epub 2002 Aug 15. Links
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.
Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".
after actually reading the full study, something the OP should of done, it is clear that a mix of high and low reps would be the best for muscle gains. The high rep group could perform more reps, had better aerobic power and greater lactic acid buildup or time to exhaustion. All of these are beneficial to hypertrophy although not the main factors. True the low/int group had more hypertrophy but high reps combined with the low reps for improved aerobic and lactic acid threshold and muscular endurance. This along with heavy weight would in theory lead to increased endurance with heavyweight, which in theory could not be found in the low rep individuals. Both muscular strength and endurance contribute to hypertrophy.
perhaps you could post the full text or email a copy to me since you have it - or are you talking about the other study i posted as the one you put above clearly does not back you claims, in terms of hypertrophy gains.
in fact neither papers i posted back your claims in any way.
also if you had the full paper why where you asking me if the endurance part was through reps or cardio ::)
perhaps in reading all FOUR PAPERS you missed this part :
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 38(11):1939-1944, November 2006.
BAAR, KEITH
Abstract:
Protein kinase B/Akt can both activate protein synthesis and decrease protein breakdown, thus leading to hypertrophy, and AMP-activated protein kinase can increase mitochondrial protein, glucose transport, and a number of other factors that result in an endurance phenotype. Not only are PKB and AMPK central to the generation of the resistance and endurance phenotypes, they also block each other's downstream signaling. The consequence of these interactions is a direct molecular blockade hindering the development of the concurrent training phenotype.
Which clearly argues against your claim that high reps win or a mixture for hypertrophy.
however i agree that to neglect all high rep/cardio endurance training would be foolish, from a health/maximum all round performance aspect.
necrosis - are you usmokepole by any chance?
is this you stalking me just as i predicted you would? arguing with everything i post ;D i really owned you bad in that other thread didn't i ;)
-
perhaps you could post the full text or email a copy to me since you have it - or are you talking about the other study i posted as the one you put above clearly does not back you claims, in terms of hypertrophy gains.
in fact neither papers i posted back your claims in any way.
also if you had the full paper why where you asking me if the endurance part was through reps or cardio ::)
perhaps in reading all FOUR PAPERS you missed this part :
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 38(11):1939-1944, November 2006.
BAAR, KEITH
Abstract:
Protein kinase B/Akt can both activate protein synthesis and decrease protein breakdown, thus leading to hypertrophy, and AMP-activated protein kinase can increase mitochondrial protein, glucose transport, and a number of other factors that result in an endurance phenotype. Not only are PKB and AMPK central to the generation of the resistance and endurance phenotypes, they also block each other's downstream signaling. The consequence of these interactions is a direct molecular blockade hindering the development of the concurrent training phenotype.
Which clearly argues against your claim that high reps win or a mixture for hypertrophy.
however i agree that to neglect all high rep/cardio endurance training would be foolish, from a health/maximum all round performance aspect.
necrosis - are you usmokepole by any chance?
is this you stalking me just as i predicted you would? arguing with everything i post ;D i really owned you bad in that other thread didn't i ;)
im sorry i just wanted to see you meltdown again :D
longer response then i anticipated, ultra melt.
-
im sorry i just wanted to see you meltdown again :D
longer response then i anticipated, ultra melt.
hahahahaha i knew it - let the stalking begin. you have owned yourself once again.
-
hahahahaha i knew it - let the stalking begin. you have owned yourself once again.
i already posted in this thread.
Honestly i dont have the hatred you seem to have for me, its all good bro.
the stuff where i said high reps for the win has no bearing on high reps at all, its gibberish, i just wanted to show you how stupid you where. Sorry, its all good bro :D. The fact that you argued against it shows you dont even know what i referring to. I agree with you btw, im just being an ass, lower ranges are better for hypertrophy but i think high reps should be used as well for endurance adaptations which could be beneficial.
of course im usmokepole, im still the mod of the nut board.
If you could own me in anything intellectual at all it would be a sad day, a sad day.
-
i already posted in this thread.
Honestly i dont have the hatred you seem to have for me, its all good bro.
the stuff where i said high reps for the win has no bearing on high reps at all, its gibberish, i just wanted to show you how stupid you where. Sorry, its all good bro :D. The fact that you argued against it shows you dont even know what i referring to. I agree with you btw, im just being an ass, lower ranges are better for hypertrophy but i think high reps should be used as well for endurance adaptations which could be beneficial.
of course im usmokepole, im still the mod of the nut board.
If you could own me in anything intellectual at all it would be a sad day, a sad day.
hahahahaha - can you point out where in my post i even mentioned that post never mind argued or debated that gibberish ::) hahahaha you are exposing your desperation once again.
i see you are once again trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat with deflection, and avoidance - it must really get to you how i constantly own you.
i showed abstracts that back up my thought and beliefs, while you try your best to argue with no basis, rather than debate or add to a potentially decent thought provoking thread.
then you finally admit i am right - you must be crying into your keyboard again.
at least you admit you are an ass. - brutal truth.
now run along before i own you a 3rd time.
-
another interesting study regarding rest between sets
Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men.
• Ahtiainen JP,
• Pakarinen A,
• Alen M,
• Kraemer WJ,
• Hakkinen K.
Department of Biology of Physical Activity & Neuromuscular Research Center, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland. ahtiainen@sport.jyu.fi
Acute and long-term hormonal and neuromuscular adaptations to hypertrophic strength training were studied in 13 recreationally strength-trained men. The experimental design comprised a 6-month hypertrophic strength-training period including 2 separate 3-month training periods with the crossover design, a training protocol of short rest (SR, 2 minutes) as compared with long rest (LR, 5 minutes) between the sets. Basal hormonal concentrations of serum total testosterone (T), free testosterone (FT), and cortisol (C), maximal isometric strength of the leg extensors, right leg 1 repetition maximum (1RM), dietary analysis, and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) of the quadriceps femoris by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were measured at months 0, 3, and 6. The 2 hypertrophic training protocols used in training for the leg extensors (leg presses and squats with 10RM sets) were also examined in the laboratory conditions at months 0, 3, and 6. The exercise protocols were similar with regard to the total volume of work (loads x sets x reps), but differed with regard to the intensity and the length of rest between the sets (higher intensity and longer rest of 5 minutes vs. somewhat lower intensity but shorter rest of 2 minutes). Before and immediately after the protocols, maximal isometric force and electromyographic (EMG) activity of the leg extensors were measured and blood samples were drawn for determination of serum T, FT, C, and growth hormone (GH) concentrations and blood lactate. Both protocols before the experimental training period (month 0) led to large acute increases (p < 0.05-0.001) in serum T, FT, C , and GH concentrations, as well as to large acute decreases (p < 0.05-0.001) in maximal isometric force and EMG activity. However, no significant differences were observed between the protocols. Significant increases of 7% in maximal isometric force, 16% in the right leg 1RM, and 4% in the muscle CSA of the quadriceps femoris were observed during the 6-month strength-training period. However, both 3-month training periods performed with either the longer or the shorter rest periods between the sets resulted in similar gains in muscle mass and strength. No statistically significant changes were observed in basal hormone concentrations or in the profiles of acute hormonal responses during the entire 6-month experimental training period. The present study indicated that, within typical hypertrophic strength-training protocols used in the present study, the length of the recovery times between the sets (2 vs. 5 minutes) did not have an influence on the magnitude of acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses or long-term training adaptations in muscle strength and mass in previously strength-trained men.
PMID: 16095405 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
-
hahahahaha - can you point out where in my post i even mentioned that post never mind argued or debated that gibberish ::) hahahaha you are exposing your desperation once again.
i see you are once again trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat with deflection, and avoidance - it must really get to you how i constantly own you.
i showed abstracts that back up my thought and beliefs, while you try your best to argue with no basis, rather than debate or add to a potentially decent thought provoking thread.
then you finally admit i am right - you must be crying into your keyboard again.
at least you admit you are an ass. - brutal truth.
now run along before i own you a 3rd time.
now your using science to back up your claims bwwhahahahahahahh
"Which clearly argues against your claim that high reps win or a mixture for hypertrophy."
the only place where i said high reps for the win
"The control of skeletal muscle mass is also markedly mediated by the regulation of transduction pathways that promote the synthesis and/or the degradation of proteins. Insulin-like growth factor-I plays a key role in this balance by activating the Akt/tuberous sclerosis complex 2/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. Stimulation of this pathway leads to the concomitant activation of initiation and elongation factors resulting in the elevation of protein translation and the downregulation of ubiquitin proteasome components through Forkhead-box O transcription factors.
=
high reps for the WIN"
BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAHA
i dont even have to try with you.....
no distraction i posted the quotes you read them, you know nothing about weight training, stop the non sense. Go back to the comic books, i wont respond anymore as i have alot of work to be at but i will tell you this, you are an entertaining fellow. Have a good one :D
-
now your using science to back up your claims bwwhahahahahahahh
"Which clearly argues against your claim that high reps win or a mixture for hypertrophy."
the only place where i said high reps for the win
"The control of skeletal muscle mass is also markedly mediated by the regulation of transduction pathways that promote the synthesis and/or the degradation of proteins. Insulin-like growth factor-I plays a key role in this balance by activating the Akt/tuberous sclerosis complex 2/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. Stimulation of this pathway leads to the concomitant activation of initiation and elongation factors resulting in the elevation of protein translation and the downregulation of ubiquitin proteasome components through Forkhead-box O transcription factors.
=
high reps for the WIN"
BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAHA
i dont even have to try with you.....
no distraction i posted the quotes you read them, you know nothing about weight training, stop the non sense. Go back to the comic books, i wont respond anymore as i have alot of work to be at but i will tell you this, you are an entertaining fellow. Have a good one :D
you are beyond delusional.
At no point did i mention your bullshit abstract, you argued that i should have read the full paper of the study i posted like like you did (which was more lies from you), and that a mixture of high and low reps is best according to the full study. i pointed out you were full of shit, and there were 4 papers, not 1.
i even highlighted the part that shows a mixture of high and low reps are bad for hypertrophy, and highlighthed that your beliefs and claims of a mixture of reps and 'high reps for the win' were wrong - at no point did i entertain your shit abstract.
you have beed exposed as a liar and a fraud. I have owned you more times that you can count, and your hatred of me has gotten so overwhelming for you that you have snapped and have even admitted you are now making things up to try to catch me out.
you are now once again trying to ignore and deflect what has really went on in this thread, just like you did in the supplement thread. in the vain hope noone has noticed what a sad and pathetic loser you are.
you have admitted you agree with me, you have admitted you made stuff up to catch me out, you have admitted you are an ass - you have owned yourself.
hahahahaha you couldn't make this stuff up - only on getbig.
now like i said, run along and leave this thread to the grown ups.
-
you are beyond delusional.
At no point did i mention your bullshit abstract, you argued that i should have read the full paper of the study i posted like like you did (which was more lies from you), and that a mixture of high and low reps is best according to the full study. i pointed out you were full of shit, and there were 4 papers, not 1.
i even highlighted the part that shows a mixture of high and low reps are bad for hypertrophy, and highlighthed that your beliefs and claims of a mixture of reps and 'high reps for the win' were wrong - at no point did i entertain your shit abstract.
you have beed exposed as a liar and a fraud. I have owned you more times that you can count, and your hatred of me has gotten so overwhelming for you that you have snapped and have even admitted you are now making things up to try to catch me out.
you are now once again trying to ignore and deflect what has really went on in this thread, just like you did in the supplement thread. in the vain hope noone has noticed what a sad and pathetic loser you are.
you have admitted you agree with me, you have admitted you made stuff up to catch me out, you have admitted you are an ass - you have owned yourself.
hahahahaha you couldn't make this stuff up - only on getbig.
now like i said, run along and leave this thread to the grown ups.
jesus that was a long response.
i put your paper title into pubmed and received one hit with the same authors. You never searched pubmed because you dont know how to use it, where did you google this shit to?
i did not make it up, it is relevant to hypertrophy but gibberish for the topic at hand. You wouldnt know because you dont know much.
every reponse you attempt character assasination on me and avoid the issues, yet claim im doing it ::)
"you have beed exposed as a liar and a fraud. I have owned you more times that you can count, and your hatred of me has gotten so overwhelming for you that you have snapped and have even admitted you are now making things up to try to catch me out."
quite the imagination, i just wanted to expose another idiot. No one in this thread will take you serious i see one dude who has some knowledge has already gotten frustrated with you, LMAO.
dude lets be serious here for one minute, all in all fucking around with this shit is funny, but do you seriously think what happened in the other thread was anything other then total destruction, come on bro, be real with yourself here. I do get a kick out of watching you melt and claiming to own me in every response=clearly being pwnd, if you have to repeat it over and over you are losing the battle kid.
-
jesus that was a long response.
i put your paper title into pubmed and received one hit with the same authors. You never searched pubmed because you dont know how to use it, where did you google this shit to?
i did not make it up, it is relevant to hypertrophy but gibberish for the topic at hand. You wouldnt know because you dont know much.
every reponse you attempt character assasination on me and avoid the issues, yet claim im doing it ::)
"you have beed exposed as a liar and a fraud. I have owned you more times that you can count, and your hatred of me has gotten so overwhelming for you that you have snapped and have even admitted you are now making things up to try to catch me out."
quite the imagination, i just wanted to expose another idiot. No one in this thread will take you serious i see one dude who has some knowledge has already gotten frustrated with you, LMAO.
dude lets be serious here for one minute, all in all fucking around with this shit is funny, but do you seriously think what happened in the other thread was anything other then total destruction, come on bro, be real with yourself here. I do get a kick out of watching you melt and claiming to own me in every response=clearly being pwnd, if you have to repeat it over and over you are losing the battle kid.
if you cannot use pubmed, thats your problem. :(
please just cease and desist your usual deflection tactics, you have been found out - again. ::)
as for your abstract, ::) you are wrong AGAIN - it DOES have something to do with the thread topic, as we are discussing the most optimum rep range for muscle mass. the abstract describes the regulation of muscle mass via molecular and cellular responses to resistance training, it's not rocket science. HAHAHAHAHAHA you are beyond help.
i did not address it as it would have lead the thread down a path i did not want it to go. - lucky for you it seems ;D
thats right, take a deep breath, you have been owned again :)
you really have to let this obsesion with me go, before it turns you insane, i can feel you pain. :-\
i admit you play the game well, you can use pubmed, and use big words to deflect and confuse the issue. however, you have more than met your match as my continued ownings of you can attest. :-*
i understand you can not recover from the amino thread, but you must, its for your own good. :-\
p.s. don't cry son, its only getbig. :-*
-
my apologies FP. i was a bit harsh.
my bad.
fwiw im not saying this is the solution to all things weight training, nor a foolproof way to avoid plateauing.
what it is is a way to combat the issues encountered by everyday weight trainers and athletes as it addresses all the aspects that contribute to sticking points, continual progress and psychological issues.
no problem mate.
do you post on hst? i think i recognise your handle.
if so, has there been any juicy studies talked about recently ?
what has happened to dan moore?
-
if you cannot use pubmed, thats your problem. :(
please just cease and desist your usual deflection tactics, you have been found out - again. ::)
as for your abstract, ::) you are wrong AGAIN - it DOES have something to do with the thread topic, as we are discussing the most optimum rep range for muscle mass. the abstract describes the regulation of muscle mass via molecular and cellular responses to resistance training, it's not rocket science. HAHAHAHAHAHA you are beyond help.
i did not address it as it would have lead the thread down a path i did not want it to go. - lucky for you it seems ;D
thats right, take a deep breath, you have been owned again :)
you really have to let this obsesion with me go, before it turns you insane, i can feel you pain. :-\
i admit you play the game well, you can use pubmed, and use big words to deflect and confuse the issue. however, you have more than met your match as my continued ownings of you can attest. :-*
i understand you can not recover from the amino thread, but you must, its for your own good. :-\
p.s. don't cry son, its only getbig. :-*
the fact that you call proper scientific terminology "big words" is indicative of your mental midgitry. You must be proud of yourself to be able to use hypertrophy correctly, what about hyperplasia, metaplasia, dysplasia, troponin, inorganic phosphate, the power stroke, actin-myosin complex, sacroplasm
do these also confuse you?
met my match, bwhahahah you have been reading to many comics my friend, this is not the marvel universe and you dont have powers despite the tight costume you are wearing. Ill let you in on a secret, the hulk isnt real, he would get beaten by thor. Actual infinites dont exist, so even in your imaginary world you contradicting reality.
FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
if you cannot use pubmed, thats your problem. :(
please just cease and desist your usual deflection tactics, you have been found out - again. ::)
as for your abstract, ::) you are wrong AGAIN - it DOES have something to do with the thread topic, as we are discussing the most optimum rep range for muscle mass. the abstract describes the regulation of muscle mass via molecular and cellular responses to resistance training, it's not rocket science. HAHAHAHAHAHA you are beyond help.
i did not address it as it would have lead the thread down a path i did not want it to go. - lucky for you it seems ;D
thats right, take a deep breath, you have been owned again :)
you really have to let this obsesion with me go, before it turns you insane, i can feel you pain. :-\
i admit you play the game well, you can use pubmed, and use big words to deflect and confuse the issue. however, you have more than met your match as my continued ownings of you can attest. :-*
i understand you can not recover from the amino thread, but you must, its for your own good. :-\
p.s. don't cry son, its only getbig. :-*
"as for your abstract, ::) you are wrong AGAIN - it DOES have something to do with the thread topic, as we are discussing the most optimum rep range for muscle mass. the abstract describes the regulation of muscle mass via molecular and cellular responses to resistance training, it's not rocket science. HAHAHAHAHAHA you are beyond help."
I wasnt referring to the abstract, this is obvious, as i said i didnt make it up referring to the second post i made on molecular adaptations, the genetic shit. It is relevant to how hypertrophy happens and possible avenues, but does not touch on rep ranges.
again your lack of comprehension is amazing.
-
I must say your arguments are quite amusing. :D
Hey necrosis, may I ask you about the decision process behind changing your name from the ever so fetching "usmokepole" to the even more charming "necrosis"? :D
-
the fact that you call proper scientific terminology "big words" is indicative of your mental midgitry. You must be proud of yourself to be able to use hypertrophy correctly, what about hyperplasia, metaplasia, dysplasia, troponin, inorganic phosphate, the power stroke, actin-myosin complex, sacroplasm
do these also confuse you?
met my match, bwhahahah you have been reading to many comics my friend, this is not the marvel universe and you dont have powers despite the tight costume you are wearing. Ill let you in on a secret, the hulk isnt real, he would get beaten by thor. Actual infinites dont exist, so even in your imaginary world you contradicting reality.
FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wooooo more big words ::)
here's a big word that describes you:
WANK
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e212/idrisenoch/Wank.gif)
hahahahahahahaha thats not you trying to once again ignore the facts, and deflect - i have exposed you for the fool you are time and time again.
let it go son, you are only humiliating yourself more by these futile attempts at saving face.
I wasnt referring to the abstract, this is obvious, as i said i didnt make it up referring to the second post i made on molecular adaptations, the genetic shit. It is relevant to how hypertrophy happens and possible avenues, but does not touch on rep ranges.
again your lack of comprehension is amazing.
translation = boo hoo boo hoo, please stop owning me, i can't take it anymore, i know, i'll just keep typing in the hope everyone will get bored and not realise what a cock i have exposed myself to be.
necrosis - how apt, as you are giving me brain death reading your pathetic posts.
-
wooooo more big words ::)
here's a big word that describes you:
WANK
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e212/idrisenoch/Wank.gif)
hahahahahahahaha thats not you trying to once again ignore the facts, and deflect - i have exposed you for the fool you are time and time again.
let it go son, you are only humiliating yourself more by these futile attempts at saving face.
translation = boo hoo boo hoo, please stop owning me, i can't take it anymore, i know, i'll just keep typing in the hope everyone will get bored and not realise what a cock i have exposed myself to be.
necrosis - how apt, as you are giving me brain death reading your pathetic posts.
FAIL
-
The control of skeletal muscle mass is also markedly mediated by the regulation of transduction pathways that promote the synthesis and/or the degradation of proteins. Insulin-like growth factor-I plays a key role in this balance by activating the Akt/tuberous sclerosis complex 2/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. Stimulation of this pathway leads to the concomitant activation of initiation and elongation factors resulting in the elevation of protein translation and the downregulation of ubiquitin proteasome components through Forkhead-box O transcription factors.
=
high reps for the WIN
to be fair we're talking about a group of untrained men for 8 weeks.
from what i've read, i would be spending some time every year back at the low rep range, and the rest concentrating on sub maximal, structured rep schemes. for drug free training.
-
to be fair we're talking about a group of untrained men for 8 weeks.
from what i've read, i would be spending some time every year back at the low rep range, and the rest concentrating on sub maximal, structured rep schemes. for drug free training.
agreeded. I think low reps are great for endocrine adaptations but if taken to failure they crush the nervous system along with fucking up the cortisol response.
WAVELENGTH.
I changed my name because it is my name on MandM and i am the destroyer of worlds, or at least your cellular world :D
usmokepole was originally a gimmick, so i decided to change it once i gained mod status, as it was funny to see people try to find aways around calling me usmokepole.
"hey pole"
"hi smokey"
"hey usmoke"
"smokes"
lol.
-
agreeded. I think low reps are great for endocrine adaptations but if taken to failure they crush the nervous system along with fucking up the cortisol response.
WAVELENGTH.
I changed my name because it is my name on MandM and i am the destroyer of worlds, or at least your cellular world :D
usmokepole was originally a gimmick, so i decided to change it once i gained mod status, as it was funny to see people try to find aways around calling me usmokepole.
"hey pole"
"hi smokey"
"hey usmoke"
"smokes"
lol.
did none ever just call you wank ??? i'm sure i wasn't the first.
-
to be fair we're talking about a group of untrained men for 8 weeks.
from what i've read, i would be spending some time every year back at the low rep range, and the rest concentrating on sub maximal, structured rep schemes. for drug free training.
tim, experienced or not, these meta analysis shows that experienced athletes respond best to a lower rep range too:
do these change your mind?
A Meta-analysis to Determine the Dose Response for Strength Development.
BASIC SCIENCES
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 35(3):456-464, March 2003.
RHEA, MATTHEW R. 1; ALVAR, BRENT A. 1; BURKETT, LEE N. 1; BALL, STEPHEN D. 2
Abstract:
RHEA, M. R., B. A. ALVAR, L. N. BURKETT, and S. D. BALL. A Meta-Analysis to Determine the Dose Response for Strength Development. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 456-464, 2003.
Purpose: The identification of a quantifiable dose-response relationship for strength training is important to the prescription of proper training programs. Although much research has been performed examining strength increases with training, taken individually, they provide little insight into the magnitude of strength gains along the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes. A meta-analysis of 140 studies with a total of 1433 effect sizes (ES) was carried out to identify the dose-response relationship.
Methods: Studies employing a strength-training intervention and containing data necessary to calculate ES were included in the analysis.
Results: ES demonstrated different responses based on the training status of the participants. Training with a mean intensity of 60% of one repetition maximum elicits maximal gains in untrained individuals, whereas 80% is most effective in those who are trained. Untrained participants experience maximal gains by training each muscle group 3 d[middle dot]wk-1 and trained individuals 2 d[middle dot]wk-1. Four sets per muscle group elicited maximal gains in both trained and untrained individuals.
Conclusion: The dose-response trends identified in this analysis support the theory of progression in resistance program design and can be useful in the development of training programs designed to optimize the effort to benefit ratio.
Or how about this one:
Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship.Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA.
Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona 85212, USA. mdpeterz@hotmail.com
The efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of strength training programs are paramount for sport conditioning. Therefore, identifying optimal doses of the training variables allows for maximal gains in muscular strength to be elicited per unit of time and also for the reduction in risk of overtraining and/or overuse injuries. A quantified dose-response relationship for the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes has been identified for recreationally trained populations but has yet to be identified for competitive athletes. The purpose of this analysis was to identify this relationship in collegiate, professional, and elite athletes. A meta-analysis of 37 studies with a total of 370 effect sizes was performed to identify the dose-response relationship among competitive athletes. Criteria for study inclusion were (a) participants must have been competitive athletes at the collegiate or professional level, (b) the study must have employed a strength training intervention, and (c) the study must have included necessary data to calculate effect sizes. Effect size data demonstrate that maximal strength gains are elicited among athletes who train at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. The current data exhibit different dose-response trends than previous meta-analytical investigations with trained and untrained nonathletes. These results demonstrate explicit dose-response trends for maximal strength gains in athletes and may be directly used in strength and conditioning venues to optimize training efficiency and effectiveness.
6-8 reps all the way for me 8)
-
did none ever just call you wank ??? i'm sure i wasn't the first.
would you like to fight in real life :o
-
would you like to fight in real life :o
hahahahahahaha don't tell me your another internet hard man ::)
were you wearing your tapout shirt when you wrote that, pounding the keys. ;D
these ownings are coming too easy.
i might even join mind and muscle, so i can own you over there too. ;)
as i said relax son, its only the internet. :-*
-
I'll weigh in.
There is no point in lifting light if you want to be large and strong. Anything below 80% 1RM is pretty much useless IMO.
The only way to create myofibrillar growth is by damaging the myosin and actin themselves. Low intensity weights (sub 65% 1RM) do little damage to protein structures. Yes, the action "burns". But a "burn" doesn't disrupt fiber integrity. It tells you you've got increased ammonia in the muscle. It tells you that your muscles can't buffer anymore hydrogen ions. Big deal. You can boost ammonia and hydrogen ions like crazy and not disrupt protein structure to a degree necessary to elicit true significant growth.
No disruption = no growth, by and large.
Disruption happens at a peak around 85% to 90% 1RM. And meta-analysis of research shows that most muscle groups can withstand between 50 and 70 repetitions at 85 to 90 1RM per 5 day period. Anything less insufficiently motivates myofibrillar protein disruptions (and therefore falls short of maximizing calpain and immune/cytokine responses, and the further ensuing localized growth factor cascade involving FGF and IGF, MGF, among others.) Do more, and you want to ensure you are a very well trained and coached and fed athlete to ensure you don't overtrain. Most bodybuilders don't overtrain IMO. Most are chronically undertrained, in my experience.
The basic tenets to get big:
1. 50 to 70 repetitions, per muscle group (a lat is a muscle group, and erectors are a separate one, as an example. Your "back" is not a muscle group) per 5 day period. Split these 50 to 70 reps over as many days per week as you can. Lumping them into one workout per 5 day period is not as efficient as doing 10 reps every day for 5 days, for example
2. Lift explosively, as fast as you can, in the concentric. The bar may not move fast at 90% 1RM, but do your best to try. That's what's important. Fight the eccentric, but don't move agonizingly slow. There's benefit (and risk, mind you) in ballistic eccentrics.
3. Focus on multi-joint lifts. Isolation exercises waste time and effort. If given one exercise, we would all squat. If given two, we would deadlift and squat. If given three, we would squat, dead, and press or clean. And so on. Takes a while before you weed out all great multi-joint movements to get to single arm rear cable laterals, doesn't it?
4. Your body is remarkably similar to most humans, despite what your mother tells you (i.e. that your special and not like the other boys). You need heavy weights, and you need to lift that heavy weight often to grow.
5. Different muscles don't respond to different rep ranges. By and large, you have equal slow and fast twitch fibers in most major muscles (exceptions for muscles like soleus and forearm extensors). So, high reps don't work on legs. Heavy weights works on legs. Just like it does for pecs and lats, shoulders and arms. Type IIB fibers grow the fastest (though most eventually convert to type IIA with training). They need 85%1RM to get hit -- lighter weights fail to recruit them efficiently. High intensity loads (supra 85% 1RM) hit them well. Your fibers are recruited in preferential order. The only way to get to the high-threshold fibers is to apply enough intensity. At low intensity, you recruit primarily type I fibers -- not prone to growth. As the intensity increases, so too does motor neural recruitment of fiber packs that are made up of higher densities of fast-twitch glycolytic fibers like the type II variety. So, lift heavy, target the fibers most apt to grow, and do it often. Waste time with light weights, if you like wasting time. Or, hit the type I fibers if your goal is not maximum size or strength.
6. If your pecs don't grow as fast as your delts, it's because you have a mechanical advantage that helps you preferentially recruit shoulder muscles over chest muscles. Maybe it's a lever advantage. Maybe it's a neuromuscular motor pattern you unconsciously learned as a young boy. Whatever it is, you have to unlearn and learn all over again. In this case, again, heavy weights and lots of reps. Teach the muscle to lift and contract against a resistance. By and large, though, weak bodyparts usually stay weak compared to the strong ones. Anabolic products only further exacerbate this problem.
My thoughts, on this most excellent debate.
you are also extremely full of shit :
how big and how strong you get past whatever mommy nature gave you is directly proportional with the quality and quantity of hormones and aas providing that the calories are there ...
other than that you need muscle stimuly and frankly noone gives a fuck if it's heavy light or moderate ...YOU WILL GROW REGARDLESS
SO LIFT MODERATE , EAT RIGHT AND TAKE PLENTY OF QUALITY GEAR IF YOU WANT SIZE ...
TEST, DECA , D-BOL + FOOD
STFU with all that myofibril shit ...fukkin clown
-
I agree that no matter how scientific you get at the end of the day a natural has their individual limit.
I think the first 6 years or so can be drastic especialy the first 3 or so and after that its small gains if any and refinements to ones physique and strength.
The advantage a natty has is that you never get smaller or weaker, you are always improving to an extent.
I say lift heavy, eat a lot and as far as over training or not I'm undecided cause I always feel something positive from both, when ever I over train for a few months I dont get much heavier but do get denser and harder and when training is moderate volume without going much past failure i tend to get a little bigger but a litle bloated as well with over all more consistant strength gains.
-
You're entitled to your opinion. I won't tell you to STFU though -- I'll show you respect.
What would you recommend if someone didn't want to use "hormones"? Not everyone does or wants to. What then? Does your opinion change, or is still just provide any kind of stimulus, and eat?
IF YOU WANNA GO THE NATURAL ROUTE :
EAT
LIFT WITH CARE (don't try to be ronnie )
more recovery time
RESULT : YOU'LL BE SMALL ...YOUR NATURAL PLATEAU ...WHATEVER THAT IS ...WON'T BE ANYTHINGTO WRITE MOMMY ABOUT
YOU'LL BE FATTER ....5'11" WILL BE 180 LBS LEAN @ 8% BODYFAT ...
UNDER 200 LBS WITH 10-12 @
UNDER 165-170 MAX WITH FATBURNERS AND 6 % BECAUSE NATURAL YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET VERY LEAN ...
SO EITHER WAY : NATURAL = NO BODYBUILDING :-\
So yeah ...just eat and lift some and whatever mommy nature gave you you'll attain withing 3 years ...max ...and you'll stay there for as long as you lift and eat the same :
more calories + fater ..
but muscle wise : genetic limit
ps : apologies for the STFU .. ;D
-
I'll weigh in.
There is no point in lifting light if you want to be large and strong. Anything below 80% 1RM is pretty much useless IMO.
The only way to create myofibrillar growth is by damaging the myosin and actin themselves. Low intensity weights (sub 65% 1RM) do little damage to protein structures. Yes, the action "burns". But a "burn" doesn't disrupt fiber integrity. It tells you you've got increased ammonia in the muscle. It tells you that your muscles can't buffer anymore hydrogen ions. Big deal. You can boost ammonia and hydrogen ions like crazy and not disrupt protein structure to a degree necessary to elicit true significant growth.
No disruption = no growth, by and large.
Disruption happens at a peak around 85% to 90% 1RM. And meta-analysis of research shows that most muscle groups can withstand between 50 and 70 repetitions at 85 to 90 1RM per 5 day period. Anything less insufficiently motivates myofibrillar protein disruptions (and therefore falls short of maximizing calpain and immune/cytokine responses, and the further ensuing localized growth factor cascade involving FGF and IGF, MGF, among others.) Do more, and you want to ensure you are a very well trained and coached and fed athlete to ensure you don't overtrain. Most bodybuilders don't overtrain IMO. Most are chronically undertrained, in my experience.
The basic tenets to get big:
1. 50 to 70 repetitions, per muscle group (a lat is a muscle group, and erectors are a separate one, as an example. Your "back" is not a muscle group) per 5 day period. Split these 50 to 70 reps over as many days per week as you can. Lumping them into one workout per 5 day period is not as efficient as doing 10 reps every day for 5 days, for example
2. Lift explosively, as fast as you can, in the concentric. The bar may not move fast at 90% 1RM, but do your best to try. That's what's important. Fight the eccentric, but don't move agonizingly slow. There's benefit (and risk, mind you) in ballistic eccentrics.
3. Focus on multi-joint lifts. Isolation exercises waste time and effort. If given one exercise, we would all squat. If given two, we would deadlift and squat. If given three, we would squat, dead, and press or clean. And so on. Takes a while before you weed out all great multi-joint movements to get to single arm rear cable laterals, doesn't it?
4. Your body is remarkably similar to most humans, despite what your mother tells you (i.e. that your special and not like the other boys). You need heavy weights, and you need to lift that heavy weight often to grow.
5. Different muscles don't respond to different rep ranges. By and large, you have equal slow and fast twitch fibers in most major muscles (exceptions for muscles like soleus and forearm extensors). So, high reps don't work on legs. Heavy weights works on legs. Just like it does for pecs and lats, shoulders and arms. Type IIB fibers grow the fastest (though most eventually convert to type IIA with training). They need 85%1RM to get hit -- lighter weights fail to recruit them efficiently. High intensity loads (supra 85% 1RM) hit them well. Your fibers are recruited in preferential order. The only way to get to the high-threshold fibers is to apply enough intensity. At low intensity, you recruit primarily type I fibers -- not prone to growth. As the intensity increases, so too does motor neural recruitment of fiber packs that are made up of higher densities of fast-twitch glycolytic fibers like the type II variety. So, lift heavy, target the fibers most apt to grow, and do it often. Waste time with light weights, if you like wasting time. Or, hit the type I fibers if your goal is not maximum size or strength.
6. If your pecs don't grow as fast as your delts, it's because you have a mechanical advantage that helps you preferentially recruit shoulder muscles over chest muscles. Maybe it's a lever advantage. Maybe it's a neuromuscular motor pattern you unconsciously learned as a young boy. Whatever it is, you have to unlearn and learn all over again. In this case, again, heavy weights and lots of reps. Teach the muscle to lift and contract against a resistance. By and large, though, weak bodyparts usually stay weak compared to the strong ones. Anabolic products only further exacerbate this problem.
My thoughts, on this most excellent debate.
thanks for your input snx, fantastic stuff, i agree entirely 8)
-
the thing with having a natural limit, i do not believe we are close to it, as science still has more secrets to reveal regarding optimum ways to grow, etc
For example when i first started working out at 17, i messed around with free weights in my room, i got stronger and bigger, despite having a poor diet. by around 18 i thought i maxed out, as i was making extremely small to non existant gains till i was 21.
Then at 21 i joined a gym, and added a variety of different excercises, and playing different sports and grew some more, in fact i would say physically i was at a peak, both in strength and cardio performance - although i still thought i could get bigger and stronger as i saw bodybuilders in magazined that put me to shame ( i was still nieve and believed they were all natural), i read up on diets, and eating more protein etc.
Then around 22 i joined what i would call a real gym - hardcore lifters, big strong, and pumping those lighter weights set after set, so i copied them for years. My diet was slightly better then, i.e. eating every piece of meat i saw, and i got bigger and fatter, yet weaker, but i didn't care i was a bodybuilder ::) eventually working out 2 hours a day every day burned me out, and had to take a break, the amount of colds and flus i was geting made me think i had some sort of disease. I was weaker than i had ever been, not as dense, i could barely walk without being out of breath, etc.
anyway i took this time to re-evaluate, and educate myself in proper nutrition, and excercise science. i discovered how big of a part steroids play in bodybuilding. i read books like supertraining by mel siff, serious strength training by bompa, science and practice of strength training by zatorski, and tons of others like dorians, arnolds, and mentzer's books. not to mention the nutrition books and pubmed abstracts and full studies.
In the end i feel i am back where i started with studies like the ones above that showing that heavy weight is best for hypertrophy and strength - which tied into my own experiences when i first started experimenting, as this is when i made my best gains, in size and strength too. (a few years after the initial newbie gains)
Its sad to say but the more i learned about bodybuilding from listening to bodybuilders the less i learned about building a great body.
as for reaching a natural peak, just in the past few years we have learned about the length of time that protein synthesis remains elevated after a workout, and eaa's role in protein synthesis, how insulin can benefit bodybuilders if taken at the right times, etc
even the strength and mass studies are revealing more and more like showing how heavy low rep sets are best for strength/mass and what the optimum volume, and frequency should be for maximum results.
so in a few years, i believe we will know even more, and with each piece of info we will take the natural physique to a new previously thought impossible level 8)
-
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
some people never get it ..
-
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
some people never get it ..
hahahahahaha yes you never have - even with your 1500mg of test per week and 100 mg dbol a day ::)
you should read more of this thread sava, clearly the high rep pump sets are not working. :-\
-
hahahahahahaha don't tell me your another internet hard man ::)
were you wearing your tapout shirt when you wrote that, pounding the keys. ;D
these ownings are coming too easy.
i might even join mind and muscle, so i can own you over there too. ;)
as i said relax son, its only the internet. :-*
alright where do you live :D
i have enough airmiles to get pretty far :o
-
I changed my name because it is my name on MandM and i am the destroyer of worlds, or at least your cellular world :D
usmokepole was originally a gimmick, so i decided to change it once i gained mod status, as it was funny to see people try to find aways around calling me usmokepole.
"hey pole"
"hi smokey"
"hey usmoke"
"smokes"
lol.
Next name will be "cancerofthecunt" then? :D
-
Next name will be "cancerofthecunt" then? :D
I think he should call himself 'piles'
because he's a pain in the arse that no one likes to see around. :D
-
I think he should call himself 'piles'
because he's a pain in the arse that no one likes to see around. :D
I was just joking of course, I think he's a good guy.
Very interesting discussions, also on the religion board.
Why are you two so snappy? Quite obviously, you both know a lot about the subject at hand. ???
-
IF YOU WANNA GO THE NATURAL ROUTE :
EAT
LIFT WITH CARE (don't try to be ronnie )
more recovery time
RESULT : YOU'LL BE SMALL ...YOUR NATURAL PLATEAU ...WHATEVER THAT IS ...WON'T BE ANYTHINGTO WRITE MOMMY ABOUT
YOU'LL BE FATTER ....5'11" WILL BE 180 LBS LEAN @ 8% BODYFAT ...
UNDER 200 LBS WITH 10-12 @
UNDER 165-170 MAX WITH FATBURNERS AND 6 % BECAUSE NATURAL YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET VERY LEAN ...
SO EITHER WAY : NATURAL = NO BODYBUILDING :-\
So yeah ...just eat and lift some and whatever mommy nature gave you you'll attain withing 3 years ...max ...and you'll stay there for as long as you lift and eat the same :
more calories + fater ..
but muscle wise : genetic limit
ps : apologies for the STFU .. ;D
I agree. From my personal experience after that period any sensible gain is very hard to achieve naturally.
-
I was just joking of course, I think he's a good guy.
Very interesting discussions, also on the religion board.
Why are you two so snappy? Quite obviously, you both know a lot about the subject at hand. ???
yes i like him too, its not often i come across someone who can put up a decent fight before i own them ;D
i'm sure he ses it the same way, and doesn't really mean it when he says he will come to my house unless he's this guy:
:-\ ;D
(http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/64/41/61/18818372.jpg)
-
Many people down in my gym despite training for years with good strength have improved dramatically in size and strength when taught hopw to train properly.
One guy has put close to 100lbs on his bench naturally from 255-65-352
-
Many people down in my gym despite training for years with good strength have improved dramatically in size and strength when taught hopw to train properly.
One guy has put close to 100lbs on his bench naturally from 255-65-352
and how is that? training wise - what is train properly? do you mean 5x5?
-
and how is that? training wise - what is train properly? do you mean 5x5?
No not at all. I am also very very vague on my training log what i do and way i do it.
cycling weights. Training using proper exercises...the best esercises and getting good at them...form, frequency etc
5x5 works for me and works well but i am still only 22 so wiping my ass is gonna do more for me than someone else.
there is so muchb more to trianing than what you read in FLEX...however by no means at all is it complicated.
e.g there are chains in my gym the PLing team bought...i dont and refuse to use them...why? Unless i can bench 2x b/w naturally or squat 2.5x naturally or dead 3x naturally i dont see the point....too many things to get confused by and obsess over when more champion physiques ahve been built using a bar, squat rack bench and weights than any gods amount of bands chains balls etc.
Just my 2c
-
Also just remembered...seen a flex article abt increasing bench press...one of the workout was 6x6 with 85% of ur 1RM ::)
-
No not at all. I am also very very vague on my training log what i do and way i do it.
cycling weights. Training using proper exercises...the best esercises and getting good at them...form, frequency etc
5x5 works for me and works well but i am still only 22 so wiping my ass is gonna do more for me than someone else.
there is so muchb more to trianing than what you read in FLEX...however by no means at all is it complicated.
e.g there are chains in my gym the PLing team bought...i dont and refuse to use them...why? Unless i can bench 2x b/w naturally or squat 2.5x naturally or dead 3x naturally i dont see the point....too many things to get confused by and obsess over when more champion physiques ahve been built using a bar, squat rack bench and weights than any gods amount of bands chains balls etc.
Just my 2c
its working for you thats for sure. you are a beast, tall too, so you have managed to fill a big frame, props. 8)
-
Also just remembered...seen a flex article abt increasing bench press...one of the workout was 6x6 with 85% of ur 1RM ::)
Why the " ::)" John? 85% of 1RM for 6x6 seems like a good approach. Do you think they should be going heavier?
-
I know for a fact and most i know could not do 6x6 with 85% of their one rep max.
80% yes at a real push 85% no way
-
its working for you thats for sure. you are a beast, tall too, so you have managed to fill a big frame, props. 8)
I would not say a beast lol
Though thanks for kind words
-
I know for a fact and most i know could not do 6x6 with 85% of their one rep max.
80% yes at a real push 85% no way
Ahhh. My 1RM sucks, so I could probably do it if I took a few minutes rest betwen sets. Agreed, the last couple sets would be a struggle to make 6 tho.
-
I estimate my 1rm at 375lbs
85% is 318lbs (145kg)
No way in Gods green earth i could do that for 2 sets of 6 never mind 6.
Maybe thats just me.
Possibly Tapeworm you are more slowtwitch rather than fast twitch muscle fibres
-
yes i like him too, its not often i come across someone who can put up a decent fight before i own them ;D
i'm sure he ses it the same way, and doesn't really mean it when he says he will come to my house unless he's this guy:
:-\ ;D
(http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/64/41/61/18818372.jpg)
dont try and back out now, this was all fun and games, now it's murder. Im boarding a plane right now.
-
dont try and back out now, this was all fun and games, now it's murder. Im boarding a plane right now.
thats ok, i'll be waiting ;D
(http://www.iesb.net/images/stories/productionstills/voorhees_hockeymask.jpg)
-
I estimate my 1rm at 375lbs
85% is 318lbs (145kg)
No way in Gods green earth i could do that for 2 sets of 6 never mind 6.
Maybe thats just me.
Possibly Tapeworm you are more slowtwitch rather than fast twitch muscle fibres
Could be. I was a swimmer in my youth, and I still have the physique. ::)
I've never attempted a 1RM fresh (although I've failed on rep 2 when fatigued ;D). I'd guess 240, maybe 250 on a good day. :-\ Chest sucks. I'm a deadlift man. But what I NEED is an improved bench and squat. That'll be the mission this time around.
-
honest to god. Bench 2x a week. start at 170 and do 5x5. Explode each rep off your chest as fast as you can. Add 5lbs a workout. I bet you get to 225 for 5x5 in a short period of time providing the rest of your trining is sound and abole all you are patient.
Enjoy the days you leave teh gym knowing you have so much more in the tank. And knowing you will smoke every single rep.
I done thsi before at at time my 5x5 limit was 120kg (264) I started at 220lbs and added 5 lbs. Before i knew it i was at 275 5x5 (although this was murder)
-
tapeworm - make sure to eat everything in sight straight after the workout.
at the very least drink 500ml of milk before and straight after the workout, then 30mins-1hour after a solid meal.
you can't go wrong.
-
tapeworm - make sure to eat everything in sight straight after the workout.
at the very least drink 500ml of milk before and straight after the workout, then 30mins-1hour after a solid meal.
you can't go wrong.
:D :D :D :D ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
you little guru
I can only imagine what you looklike
-
:D :D :D :D ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
you little guru
I can only imagine what you looklike
Actually, I think milk is a great protein source if you can digest it properly. Its got a high absorption rate and very natural compared to processed protein shakes. However, there is no better protein source than egg whites, I eat 12 egg whites with a couple yolks thrown in before my workout and that works great for me.
-
:D :D :D :D ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
you little guru
I can only imagine what you looklike
hahahahahahaha bigger than you gollum
-
hahahahahahaha bigger than you gollum
are you as fat as you sound ?
-
are you as fat as you sound ?
well fatter than you - which lets face it wouldn't be hard.
when you going on your next bulking cycle of 4 bowls of soup a day and 1500mg of test ::)
you looked great during the last one
(http://www.exchange3d.com/cubecart/images/uploads/aff477/Human%20Skeleton/Skel_1.jpg)
-
you are also extremely full of shit :
how big and how strong you get past whatever mommy nature gave you is directly proportional with the quality and quantity of hormones and aas providing that the calories are there ...
other than that you need muscle stimuly and frankly noone gives a fuck if it's heavy light or moderate ...YOU WILL GROW REGARDLESS
SO LIFT MODERATE , EAT RIGHT AND TAKE PLENTY OF QUALITY GEAR IF YOU WANT SIZE ...
TEST, DECA , D-BOL + FOOD
STFU with all that myofibril shit ...fukkin clown
lift moderate eat right and take plenty of guality gear
since you took 100 mg of dbol and 1 gram of test a week......you must have looked huge right?
THIS is what you looked like AFTER your cycle :-\
-
Totally agree about leaving gas in the tank. I stopped training to failure a long time ago (after being a "HIT" disciple for many years). My progress has been leaps and bounds since my HIT days. To top it off, I practiced HIT during my early 20's -- my peak years. I've now switched to non-failure training since about age 27, and have progressed far faster.
I agree with the progression of 5x5 training. You must progress very slowly, and temper your expectations. It can be as simple as benching 170 for 5x5 on the first week. Then repeating the next week with the first set at 175 for 5x5, and then 170 for the other 4 sets. And so on, until 4 weeks later, you can do 175 for 5x5. It's a very slow progresion, but the impact of that 5 week cycle on your 1RM is huge. Your 1RM at 170 for 5x5 will probably be about 10-20lbs less than your 1RM if you can do 175 for 5x5. Most bodybuilders fail because they start adding too much weight to the bar too fast, start getting stuck at 2 or 3 reps, and then start doing forced reps to finish their sets. The forced reps just burn out your CNS and before long, your form breaks down and your elbow or wrist goes on you, and you catch a cold on top of it all. You get set back a few weeks til you heal up, then try again. It's a never-ending vicious circle.
Take your time, and do it right.
Also, totally agree on 2x6 at 85% of 1RM. My max bench right now, which I actually did, is 390 -- not a pound more, if I'm totally honest. I would die trying to do 330 lbs for two sets of six. It would crush me. But if I had to do 12 reps with 330 because my training called for it, then I'd do those 12 reps spread out over the week on two days. Like this:
Day one Tuesday:
3 sets of 2 reps with 330
Day two Friday:
6 sets of 1 rep with 330
My form would be perfect. I would feel fresh on each rep. And I'd hit the rep target. The difference on the doubles versus singles is just to change up the motor unit recruitment a bit, for freshness and some mental variety. Also, doing a bunch of singles knowing I did doubles with it a few days earlier empowers you mentally -- you'll feel unstoppable when you hit the bench.
That's how I'd do it, for what it's worth.
Everything you say is totally spot on and i subscribe to it totally.
I never ever trian to failure etc. Reading this post is like an insight into my own thoughs into training partic the 1x 175 4x170 etc...i employ something very similar. And patience is essential. I grow more by not trianing to failure and feel stronger and get bigger.
At my gym there are 1lb plates. No one uses them though apart from myself and a few likeminded friends who also trainin a similar way...guess who makes the bigger and fastest progress?
People dont realise that when they are adding 10lbs a side that is 20lb total. 10% or more to a lot of peoples bench press. Adding even 2.5lbs a side will stretch the cycle out more and yield greater gains.
One of the best deadlift cycles i done was adding 5kg (11lbs) a week. This took immense patience but after the initail "this is too easy" i learned to appreciate and enjoy the days i was ripping it off the floor. They days whgen the squat ior bench press was tough and could look forward to an easy deadlift day etc.
My CNS was not taxed at all. And due to the neurologial effect of my training i was leaving the gym feeling fresher and stronger than when i came in.
That idea regarding tapewormis probaly a better idea than mine!