Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: boonstack on October 14, 2008, 10:39:38 AM
-
I never get a significant burn or pump when i may do a heavy set of db curls of say 6-8 reps. I just "lift" it up (with proper form), but still dont get a deep pump.
im simply talking about maximum muscle breakdown methods. This obviously depends if you are into strength or having a bb'er physique. Strongmen are big "bulk" on a frame, but thats what they train for and i understand. But, these strength guys would look like shit on a bb stage. no striations/seperation/v taper, etc etc.
Contrarily,
if i do a moderate weight set of 12-15 reps, I feel the pump and burning much more pronounced. Anybody here into high volume training? You know how your quads feel when you do a dropset of leg extensions til u burnout? I like that feeling on whatever part im training.
-
FYI, the "pump" is absolutely irrelevant to muscle growth. You'll get a hell of a pump from sets of 100 leg extensions, but your legs won't grow for shit from it.
-
translation = you're a 100 pound weakling pussy that is looking for a way out
-
FYI, the "pump" is absolutely irrelevant to muscle growth. You'll get a hell of a pump from sets of 100 leg extensions, but your legs won't grow for shit from it.
but if i do a set of 40 leg extensions with "heavy" weight and when im done dont feel shit but a "energy loss", im growing?
I know not necessarily the pump means muscle growth, i know that. But, it just delivers a different "feel" to the target muscle. It may not be growing exceptionally fast, but i would argue it wouldnt be a night and day difference if u used heavy training also. its most realistic for a guy to gain 4-5 lbs of pure muscle a year, if that, mno matter what training style. When the muscle gets damaged, it responds.
-
translation = you're a 100 pound weakling pussy that is looking for a way out
And your a big, fat, dumb oaf "typical joe" beta.
-
what the one person wrote is true. The pump and burn have nothing to do with stimulating muscle growth. That's a misguided newbie though process.
And running a marathon will give your legs a different feeling that squatting some heavy ass weight. One builds muscle and one doesn't. You need to learn what "feel" is best to build muscle.
-
Most people that claim to be natural and have decent size usually do lift heavy.
-
but if i do a set of 40 leg extensions with "heavy" weight and when im done dont feel shit but a "energy loss", im growing?
I know not necessarily the pump means muscle growth, i know that. But, it just delivers a different "feel" to the target muscle. It may not be growing exceptionally fast, but i would argue it wouldnt be a night and day difference if u used heavy training also. its most realistic for a guy to gain 4-5 lbs of pure muscle a year, if that, mno matter what training style. When the muscle gets damaged, it responds.
if youre doing a set of 40 reps youre not going "heaby", that is an areobic workout.
-
if youre doing a set of 40 reps youre not going "heaby", that is an areobic workout.
guess thats why you failed the bar, Paul, hahhahhahhahah
-
No body should be lifting weights heavier than the 2 1/2 pounders with the pink padding.
Everything more heavy than that is just too much.....
-
No body should be lifting weights heavier than the 2 1/2 pounders with the pink padding.
Everything more heavy than that is just too much.....
You mean beauty Bells
(http://www.fitstrength.com/Img_IG/IGX_BeautyBells.jpg)
Elite Fister uses these to train with
-
You mean beauty Bells
(http://www.fitstrength.com/Img_IG/IGX_BeautyBells.jpg)
Elite Fister uses these to train with
BOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
what's the point of having big muscles if they don't do anything but look pretty?
i don't do pretty muscle..i do functional muscle.
Lifting heavy helps build bone density, muscle density, over all strength, size (duh), and comes in handy in regards to general physical preparedness....
I also compete in powerlifting so strength is crucial.. because i like beer and cookies too much and have no desire to stand on stage in a thong.
-
lifting heavy or at least moderately heavy to failure is the only way to lift if you are natural ...if you actually want to look like you workout
-
i would argue is there a point to lifting 'light' if you are natural.
take a look at my first post on the best rep range thread.
truth be told, any weight over 65% of your 1rm will increase protein synthesis, and tear muscle down somewhat - allowing growth, however studies show the greater the weight, the greater the strength gains, and the greater the protein synthesis response.
so its more of a question of are lighter sets optimum ?
the theory of the pump or burn being necesary for muscle growth is still hotly debated, however there is no reason not to try it by throwing in a pump/burn set or 2 after your heavier sets to fill the muscle with blood, and get the full metabolic benefits ( if any).
-
BOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I mean BOOM!
-
I also compete in powerlifting so strength is crucial.. because i like beer and cookies too much and have no desire to stand on stage in a thong.
translation: I'm scared of people thinking I'm skinny.
-
I never get a significant burn or pump when i may do a heavy set of db curls of say 6-8 reps. I just "lift" it up (with proper form), but still dont get a deep pump.
im simply talking about maximum muscle breakdown methods. This obviously depends if you are into strength or having a bb'er physique. Strongmen are big "bulk" on a frame, but thats what they train for and i understand. But, these strength guys would look like shit on a bb stage. no striations/seperation/v taper, etc etc.
Contrarily,
if i do a moderate weight set of 12-15 reps, I feel the pump and burning much more pronounced. Anybody here into high volume training? You know how your quads feel when you do a dropset of leg extensions til u burnout? I like that feeling on whatever part im training.
Have you tried a bulk with 6-8 reps and compared it to a bulk with 12-15 reps regarding your ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain? In my experience, pump or burn doesn't mean anything. I have tried 5x20 for quite some time and the results were close to zero.
-
I care just as much about getting strong as I do about getting big. I do low-repetition clean and press every shoulder day. I want to know I have the ability to overhand throw a 170-pound man in front of a train, should I ever find myself in a cool situation that warrants it.
-
I never get a significant burn or pump when i may do a heavy set of db curls of say 6-8 reps. I just "lift" it up (with proper form), but still dont get a deep pump.
im simply talking about maximum muscle breakdown methods. This obviously depends if you are into strength or having a bb'er physique. Strongmen are big "bulk" on a frame, but thats what they train for and i understand. But, these strength guys would look like shit on a bb stage. no striations/seperation/v taper, etc etc.
Contrarily,
if i do a moderate weight set of 12-15 reps, I feel the pump and burning much more pronounced. Anybody here into high volume training? You know how your quads feel when you do a dropset of leg extensions til u burnout? I like that feeling on whatever part im training.
how could we argue when you get awesome results like this. ;D
-
how could we argue when you get awesome results like this. ;D
To be fair, the pic doesn't reveal too much about his size or condition.
-
'heavy' is relative. I lift heavy for me and grow much better on the compound exercises form it than doing volume. On the shitty less important exercises i will go for a pump...though tis more for fun
-
at the end its all genetics that decide everything.
-
at the end its all genetics that decide everything.
your genetics are pretty amazing yourself, Dutch Destroyer.
-
lifting heavy or at least moderately heavy to failure is the only way to lift if you are natural ...if you actually want to look like you workout
Training to failure especially if you are natural is silly. Where do you go from failure...cycle weights ,my friend
-
your genetics are pretty amazing yourself, Dutch Destroyer.
my arm genetics are one of the worst ever observed.
-
at the end its all genetics that decide everything.
nope.
-
I never get a significant burn or pump when i may do a heavy set of db curls of say 6-8 reps. I just "lift" it up (with proper form), but still dont get a deep pump.
im simply talking about maximum muscle breakdown methods. This obviously depends if you are into strength or having a bb'er physique. Strongmen are big "bulk" on a frame, but thats what they train for and i understand. But, these strength guys would look like shit on a bb stage. no striations/seperation/v taper, etc etc.
Contrarily,
if i do a moderate weight set of 12-15 reps, I feel the pump and burning much more pronounced. Anybody here into high volume training? You know how your quads feel when you do a dropset of leg extensions til u burnout? I like that feeling on whatever part im training.
Google Max OT you whimpering little gimp! Top naturals always train heavy. Now grow a fucking pair and lift like a fucking man and stop being such a little clit!!!! >:(
-
because it is fun ???
-
The pump and burn have nothing to do with stimulating muscle growth. That's a misguided newbie though process.
You have a lot to learn.
Lets say you train your calves, you go heavy, heavy sets on it. Guess what happens? no growth whatsoever!
Lets say you do one light monster rep set, the blood is rushing trough your calves,it burns, result in 3 months of torture= 1 inch gain.
I get a pump from heavy hammer curls too. In most cases you will grow better from heavy excersize.
You re misguided if you think your legs and forearms will not grow from the pump and burn.
-
FYI, the "pump" is absolutely irrelevant to muscle growth.
But it is like coming, ALA Arnold, so it is still a good feeling.
-
FYI, the "pump" is absolutely irrelevant to muscle growth. You'll get a hell of a pump from sets of 100 leg extensions, but your legs won't grow for shit from it.
a pump is not the be all end all but i do think it is an important factor in muscle growth
-
capillarisation can add up to 20% on muscle size
Adding lots of muscle using light weights is not functional and useless....why not carry around 40lbs of fat (of course muscle is aesthetic to a degree)
-
I never get a significant burn or pump when i may do a heavy set of db curls of say 6-8 reps. I just "lift" it up (with proper form), but still dont get a deep pump.
im simply talking about maximum muscle breakdown methods. This obviously depends if you are into strength or having a bb'er physique. Strongmen are big "bulk" on a frame, but thats what they train for and i understand. But, these strength guys would look like shit on a bb stage. no striations/seperation/v taper, etc etc.
Contrarily,
if i do a moderate weight set of 12-15 reps, I feel the pump and burning much more pronounced. Anybody here into high volume training? You know how your quads feel when you do a dropset of leg extensions til u burnout? I like that feeling on whatever part im training.
1-If youre natural you can forget about striation (Unless youre Skip Lacour SP?)
2-There's a poit of trainning heavy the first 4 -5 years (specially if you start young).
-
what's the point of having big muscles if they don't do anything but look pretty?
because i like beer and cookies too much and have no desire to stand on stage in a thong.
I like how you ask and answer your own questions.. :)
-
what's the point of having big muscles if they don't do anything but look pretty?
i don't do pretty muscle..i do functional muscle.
Lifting heavy helps build bone density, muscle density, over all strength, size (duh), and comes in handy in regards to general physical preparedness....
I also compete in powerlifting so strength is crucial.. because i like beer and cookies too much and have no desire to stand on stage in a thong.
way to mask your lack of discipline with homophobia.
-
I do both.
I start an exercise with heavy reps, and stop it when I can only complete a few forced reps.
After completing those forced reps, I pick up a light weight,
and crank out as many reps as I can until my arm is swollen from the pump.
I call this part of the set a "burn session."
If you are only doing heavy reps, you aren't breaking down the muscle as much as possible;
you are still left with enough energy to continue on a lighter weight.
Also, this method makes it harder for your body to adapt to one type of training.
To further compound things, I do explosive reps on alternating weeks. I call them explosive reps,
because I aim to jerk the weight as fast as possible. I do this for speed, and as mentioned, to mix things up.
-
Bodybuilding dogma. If science has not yet perfected their conclusion to exactly what causes muscle growth, how are a bunch of internet psychos gonna declare that anything is correct?
Random knowledge is all you know. Admit it.
Empirical data is the only thing you might talk about with some dignity. Even then, all it proves is that it worked for you.
"Intensity" simply takes on another facade in high-rep training. High rep training produces insane amounts of lactic acid. You will fail from fatigue and pain. There is also some (subjective) talk of hyperplasia and split fascia.
Some folks say to use as heavy weights as possible and avoid failure. Some say that strength and size go hand in hand. Some disagree. This must be why powerlifters can remain in the same weight-class and still get stronger without getting bigger.
Who knows? Cause stress through intensity...then adapt to it. You might grow.
-
nope.
offcourse it does.
-
Naturals should always train for strength.
That is, if they want to have muscles.
8)
-
I think its harder doing 20 rep squats than it is doing 6-8 rep squats tbh so whats the argument??? Same with shoulder pressing a heavy weight for 6 reps to failure aint half as much pain as doing 15 reps to failure.Nothing wrong with pain though.Do what works for you, simple
-
and 50 reps of Squats to faillure are more painfull than 15....
-
lol true, but i guess the point is what builds muscle best?? I dont think anyone really knows
-
Naturals should always train for strength.
That is, if they want to have muscles.
8)
Amen!
-
I think its harder doing 20 rep squats than it is doing 6-8 rep squats tbh so whats the argument??? Same with shoulder pressing a heavy weight for 6 reps to failure aint half as much pain as doing 15 reps to failure.Nothing wrong with pain though.Do what works for you, simple
it's all about fiber recruitment and breakdown, you recruit and breakdown more muscle fibers lifting heavy, i do agree with you on the 20 rep squats though, absolutely brutally hard work, 15 reps on upper body work is just a waste of time though.
-
There is no point in lifting light if you're natural and want to be large and strong. Anything below 65% 1RM is pretty much useless.
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.
No disruption = no growth, by and large.
Disruption happens at a peak around 85% to 90% 1RM. And meta-analysis of most 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. 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) 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 concentric, but don't move agonizingly slow. There's benefit 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. 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. They need 85%1RM to get hit -- lighter weights fail to recruit them efficiently. So, lift heavy, target the fibers most apt to grow, and do it often. Waste time with light weights, if you like wasting time.
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.
Post of the year.
-
Post of the year.
snx knows his shit, i bet he's a beast.
-
Fucking Getbig. >:( Every time I get a few weeks into a new program, someone makes a post that gets me asking if I'm on the right track.
Nice post snx.
-
nice post snx.
-
FYI, the "pump" is absolutely irrelevant to muscle growth. You'll get a hell of a pump from sets of 100 leg extensions, but your legs won't grow for shit from it.
sure they will.
-
I never get a significant burn or pump when i may do a heavy set of db curls of say 6-8 reps. I just "lift" it up (with proper form), but still dont get a deep pump.
im simply talking about maximum muscle breakdown methods. This obviously depends if you are into strength or having a bb'er physique. Strongmen are big "bulk" on a frame, but thats what they train for and i understand. But, these strength guys would look like shit on a bb stage. no striations/seperation/v taper, etc etc.
Contrarily,
if i do a moderate weight set of 12-15 reps, I feel the pump and burning much more pronounced. Anybody here into high volume training? You know how your quads feel when you do a dropset of leg extensions til u burnout? I like that feeling on whatever part im training.
I prefer high volume training, for me its the only way I get a pump. The lowest reps I do for anything is 8, however I do 8 sets of 8! By the end the weight has usually dropped a good 30% from the original set. Most often I base my sets off of a 100 rep scheme (4 x 25, 5 x 20, 3 x33, 1 x 100 etc....) deep burn and pump from hell! Then I eat like a horse ;D
-
it's all about fiber recruitment and breakdown, you recruit and breakdown more muscle fibers lifting heavy, i do agree with you on the 20 rep squats though, absolutely brutally hard work, 15 reps on upper body work is just a waste of time though.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Yes lifting heavy does recruit and breakdown muscle fibers, but how can you say that after a 50 rep set of squats that you haven't recruited any muscle fibers. If nutrition, rest, and all other factors are consistant you will grow regardless of how "heavy" the weight is as long as the intensity is there.
-
Thanks Goudy. I like your posts on training too. Big fan of the 5x5? I am. It's a good fail-safe when all else frustrates you.
Also, solid build on you in the pics you posted.
I believe Mars or M8 would say something along the lines of "thick as a *&^", or some such.
Thanks for the kind words.
Haha yes they have said it a few times
5x5 is tried tested and proven. One problem i have is that too mnay people try to start too heavy on it. I believe it works wonders on compound movements
-
I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Yes lifting heavy does recruit and breakdown muscle fibers, but how can you say that after a 50 rep set of squats that you haven't recruited any muscle fibers. If nutrition, rest, and all other factors are consistant you will grow regardless of how "heavy" the weight is as long as the intensity is there.
why would the body build thicker muscle fibres if you keep the weight low ???
burn or not the body does not do something it does not have to.
-
50 rep squats while it will take tremendous strength is also an endurance feat compared to a 15rmax
The book 'superathletes' deals with a guy who worked up to 100kg x 100 reps...Ironically his squat was noth 'that impressive' around 440lbs if i recall correctly
-
How do Milos' Giant sets fit into this equation?
-
How do Milos' Giant sets fit into this equation?
all drugs ;D
-
why would the body build thicker muscle fibres if you keep the weight low ???
burn or not the body does not do something it does not have to.
Because your tearing down the muscle fibers with resistance as well a higher endurance which stimulates different fibers that lower rep training does not normally hit. Which with proper nutrition the body will recover and thus add new muscle tissue. Heavy lower rep training i.e. under 10 or 12 reps stimulates growth without question. However, most people assume that you can't build muscle with lighter weights and high reps and its just not true. There are so many pathways to hypertrophy and to many people miss out on higher rep training benefits. Try it, maybe it just works for me and "all" my clients and no one else.
-
all drugs ;D
yes, most of his clients are probably all drugs. But, that doesn't mean those giant sets don't work, just not on a daily basis if natural, its almost impossible to recover.
-
Because your tearing down the muscle fibers with resistance as well a higher endurance which stimulates different fibers that lower rep training does not normally hit. Which with proper nutrition the body will recover and thus add new muscle tissue. Heavy lower rep training i.e. under 10 or 12 reps stimulates growth without question. However, most people assume that you can't build muscle with lighter weights and high reps and its just not true. There are so many pathways to hypertrophy and to many people miss out on higher rep training benefits. Try it, maybe it just works for me and "all" my clients and no one else.
any weight over 65% of your 1RM stimulates protein synthesis - however not optimally. pump/burn sets cause the muscle to increase capilirisation and become more efficient at buffering lactic acid, and regenerating/storing gylcogen/atp - nothing more
the increase in muscle fibre size comes from the load itself - if this does not increase neither will muscle fibre.
-
any weight over 65% of your 1RM stimulates protein synthesis - however not optimally. pump/burn sets cause the muscle to increase capilirisation and become more efficient at buffering lactic acid, and regenerating/storing gylcogen/atp - nothing more
the increase in muscle fibre size comes from the load itself - if this does not increase neither will muscle fibre.
Well, I guess until you try it you will never know my friend. Now, will you build ultra mega strength from high rep training with weight as heavy as you can go for desired reps. NO! But that is not the point in bodybuilding. Strength does not equal muscle, and muscle does not equal strength. Now, that being said I still use the heaviest weight possible for the desired rep range, however you wont see me squat more than 225, bench 185 etc... If you actually use the muscle properly, not just throwing weights around, you wont need weights much heavier. I laugh so hard when new clients come to me say oh I can press 120's for reps on incline, and then I put them in the proper form for "chest" training, and suddenly that weight drops to the 50's or 60's before they can move back up. There is a big difference between "lifting" weights, and actually "training" with weights.
-
Well, I guess until you try it you will never know my friend. Now, will you build ultra mega strength from high rep training with weight as heavy as you can go for desired reps. NO! But that is not the point in bodybuilding. Strength does not equal muscle, and muscle does not equal strength. Now, that being said I still use the heaviest weight possible for the desired rep range, however you wont see me squat more than 225, bench 185 etc... If you actually use the muscle properly, not just throwing weights around, you wont need weights much heavier. I laugh so hard when new clients come to me say oh I can press 120's for reps on incline, and then I put them in the proper form for "chest" training, and suddenly that weight drops to the 50's or 60's before they can move back up. There is a big difference between "lifting" weights, and actually "training" with weights.
i have tried it, and yes i got gains, untill i burned out my cns.
however i disagree all things being equal - muscle does equal strength.
have you read the other threads discussing this? there are studies that compare the two methods - lots, and the lower reps always come out on top.
however good luck, i am glad you are geting results, however i believe that sooner or later your gains will stall, and remain that way untill you move past the 225 squat/185 bench.
-
i have tried it, and yes i got gains, untill i burned out my cns.
however i disagree all things being equal - muscle does equal strength.
have you read the other threads discussing this? there are studies that compare the two methods - lots, and the lower reps always come out on top.
however good luck, i am glad you are geting results, however i believe that sooner or later your gains will stall, and remain that way untill you move past the 225 squat/185 bench.
Welll ok, good luck to you as well. Are you a bodybuilder, have you competed. I have, took 5th place at my first show in the novice division. Not bad for being the smallest and youngest one up there @ 176 and only 21 then. I guess we will agree to disagree but I will also ask are you a personal trainer? or have you gone to school to learn or are you just citing studies you have read in magazines or internet? Cuz everthing i'm telling you is from my own personal experience with myself and my PT clients. Basically what I have found is that tearing it up in the gym, regardless of rep range, muscle is built with food. Its funny how people can get stronger but not bigger until they are eating the food reuired to recover and add mass.
-
Welll ok, good luck to you as well. Are you a bodybuilder, have you competed. I have, took 5th place at my first show in the novice division. Not bad for being the smallest and youngest one up there @ 176 and only 21 then. I guess we will agree to disagree but I will also ask are you a personal trainer? or have you gone to school to learn or are you just citing studies you have read in magazines or internet? Cuz everthing i'm telling you is from my own personal experience with myself and my PT clients.
Not trying to anwer for him, but the fact that he can read and understand the studies he's referencing would lead me to believe he has some background in the subject.
Anyway, the point is that the higher the rep range, the sooner you will reach a limit where you can no longer progress. For example, if you're doing 15-20 rep sets, the increment of weight you can add and maintain that repetition range is quite small. However, working in the 3-8 range you can add a decent amount of weight and only sacrifice a rep or two. In other words, the most amount of strength and hypertrophy potential lies in the lower ranges.
-
any weight over 65% of your 1RM stimulates protein synthesis - however not optimally. pump/burn sets cause the muscle to increase capilirisation and become more efficient at buffering lactic acid, and regenerating/storing gylcogen/atp - nothing more
the increase in muscle fibre size comes from the load itself - if this does not increase neither will muscle fibre.
it doesn't buffer the production of lactic acid as much as you lead it on to be but it does in a TINY scale... enough to get a few more reps out of it but not much more than that. Due to how lactic acid is produced, training in ANY WAY causes it's production on a large scale.
-
If you prefer training for the pump, Boonstack, try some supersets, with heavy weight and low reps, back and forth. You can get a good pump going with bi's/tri's, chest/back, etc. using heavy weights.
At the end of the day, it's what works for you. If you prefer building the pump, and it gives you a sense of satisfaction when you leave the gym, then keep doing it.
-
You're no slouch yourself, Tapeworm. You know your stuff too man. You've got some solid posts under your belt.
Yes, that is true. ;)
Training knowledge is definitely my weak point tho, so I appreciate you taking the time to write what you did. Of course, if I don't make MuscleTech like gains, you'll be hearing from my lawyer.
-
Yeah, as long as muscular failure is reached i suppose then hypertrophy will occur, pretty simple once you read up on it, some good points made in here :)
-
Not trying to anwer for him, but the fact that he can read and understand the studies he's referencing would lead me to believe he has some background in the subject.
Anyway, the point is that the higher the rep range, the sooner you will reach a limit where you can no longer progress. For example, if you're doing 15-20 rep sets, the increment of weight you can add and maintain that repetition range is quite small. However, working in the 3-8 range you can add a decent amount of weight and only sacrifice a rep or two. In other words, the most amount of strength and hypertrophy potential lies in the lower ranges.
I'm sure he has some background or he wouldn't post at all. However, I don't buy into studies, I use what works for me and has worked for others. More than anything the biggest factor for me is to keep changing things up and never do the same workout twice. Be it rep range, weight, exercises etc... This way the body does not adapt to a specific type of training. I do lift in lower rep ranges, but as I posted before it would be like 8 x 8 or something. I just don't lift by my most peoples standards "heavy", when I go to the lower rep ranges I use full ROM and hard contractions at the top and lowering slowly or a little faster depending on the day and what I feel like doing. At the end of the day if you haven't eaten enough calories and protein to recover from said workout, you will not grow.
-
Yeah, as long as muscular failure is reached i suppose then hypertrophy will occur, pretty simple once you read up on it, some good points made in here :)
Thank you! You lift for the way you want to look. I used to lift heavy all the time, however I found myself looking bulky and not cut. When I started lifting lighter, controlling the weight more, the striations and vascularity really started coming through. I lost "bulk" but size wise I look bigger @ 188 lbs now then I did @ 208 then.
-
Unless you have freaky genetics, the only way to get big (shameless plug) as a natural is to train very heavy- at least some of the time.
-
Unless you have freaky genetics, the only way to get big (shameless plug) as a natural is to train very heavy- at least some of the time.
As a natty you need to work in a zone where it is challenging but easy enough you wont wear yourself out...hjnce teh beauty of cycling weights
-
I agree that to achieve growth one must strive to become stronger. I also know that if you could do 20 reps with a given weight, and in the next few weeks with the same weight you can complete 21,22 or 23 reps, you've gotten stronger. ??? Maybe I'm missing something here. Bye the way, I work in a fairly low rep range myself, but also include pumping type, or higher rep finishing moves at the end of my workout.
-
Welll ok, good luck to you as well. Are you a bodybuilder, have you competed. I have, took 5th place at my first show in the novice division. Not bad for being the smallest and youngest one up there @ 176 and only 21 then. I guess we will agree to disagree but I will also ask are you a personal trainer? or have you gone to school to learn or are you just citing studies you have read in magazines or internet? Cuz everthing i'm telling you is from my own personal experience with myself and my PT clients. Basically what I have found is that tearing it up in the gym, regardless of rep range, muscle is built with food. Its funny how people can get stronger but not bigger until they are eating the food reuired to recover and add mass.
I have not competed, no, but i am a certified gym instructor - however only a small portion of my knowledge comes from the course i sat, the rest comes from reading a lot. Yes i have helped friends and fellow gym rats with some info on various things, however i do not believe that makes me qualified any more or less than you. As i said i am glad you are getting results, but lets look at some things.
1. you are 21, your test is through the roof right now, and anything you do will work.
2. At 21 i also believed that high volume sets produced hypertrophy and i did get bigger and stronger, however strength and mass gains quickly stopped.
3. i have at no point said high volume sets do not induce hypertrophy - the studies i am quoting show they do - however i am simply reporting what the studies have found and what i have found through personal experimentation over 13 years, that they are NOT optimal.
4. you are a personal trainer, at 21 how long have you been at this? surely you have come across someone who found the volume too taxing? or stalled in their gains? if not - you will, what will you do then ???
5. i stand by my comments that pump sets and volume will only get you so far - you will at some point start losing strength i guarentee it.
Thank you! You lift for the way you want to look. I used to lift heavy all the time, however I found myself looking bulky and not cut. When I started lifting lighter, controlling the weight more, the striations and vascularity really started coming through. I lost "bulk" but size wise I look bigger @ 188 lbs now then I did @ 208 then.
the reason you looked more cut when you increased volume was due to burning more calories - not the magicial muscle producing properties of lighter weights :-\
it doesn't buffer the production of lactic acid as much as you lead it on to be but it does in a TINY scale... enough to get a few more reps out of it but not much more than that. Due to how lactic acid is produced, training in ANY WAY causes it's production on a large scale.
it buffers more lactic acid than low rep sets - that was mt point, no more no less. However the low rep sets also produce less lactic acid anyway :D
-
This study shows increased cortisol and gh with each passing set after 4 sets when doing 10 and 15 reps a set.
however when doing 5 rep sets - cortisol does not increase past a low base level - no matter the number of sets ;)
point: low reps/heavy weight sets produce less muscle eating cortisol than 10-15 rep sets 8)
Hormonal responses after various resistance exercise protocols.
[My paper] Ilias Smilios, Theophilos Pilianidis, Michalis Karamouzis, Savvas P Tokmakidis
Department of Physical Education & Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece.
PURPOSE: This study examined the effects of the number of sets on testosterone, cortisol, and growth hormone (hGH) responses after maximum strength (MS), muscular hypertrophy (MH), and strength endurance (SE) protocols. METHODS: Eleven young men performed multi-joint dynamic exercises using MS (5 reps at 88% of one-repetition maximum (1-RM), 3-min rest) and MH (10 reps at 75% of 1-RM, 2-min rest) protocols with 2, 4, and 6 sets at each exercise; and an SE (15 reps at 60% of 1-RM, 1-min rest) with 2 and 4 sets. Hormonal concentrations were measured before exercise, immediately after, and at 15 and 30 min of recovery. RESULTS: The number of sets did not affect the hormonal responses after the MS protocol. Cortisol and hGH were higher (P < 0.05) after the four-set compared with the two-set sessions in the MH and SE protocols. No differences were observed between the six-set and the four-set sessions in the MH protocol. Cortisol and hGH were higher (P < 0.05) than the MS after the SE and MH protocols, and only when four and six sets were performed in the latter. hGH was higher than the MH after the SE protocol, whether two or four sets were executed, whereas cortisol (P < 0.05) was higher after the SE protocol only when two sets were performed. Testosterone did not change with any workout. CONCLUSION: The number of sets functions up to a point as a stimulus for increased hormonal concentrations in order to optimize adaptations with MH and SE protocols, and has no effect on a MS protocol. Furthermore, the number of sets may differentiate long-term adaptations with MS, MH, and SE protocols causing distinct hormonal responses.
-
another study that shows the wasted effects of too much volume.
i like to call it the goldilocks effect :D - too little or too much = no good, but the middle path = just right
Moderate volume of high relative training intensity produces greater strength gains compared with low and high volumes in competitive weightlifters.González-Badillo JJ, Izquierdo M, Gorostiaga EM.
Spanish Olympic Committee, Madrid, Spain. jjbadi@arrakis.es
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of 3 volumes of heavy resistance, average relative training intensity (expressed as a percentage of 1 repetition maximum that represented the absolute kilograms lifted divided by the number of repetitions performed) programs on maximal strength (1RM) in Snatch (Sn), Clean & Jerk (C&J), and Squat (Sq). Twenty-nine experienced (>3 years), trained junior weightlifters were randomly assigned into 1 of 3 groups: low-intensity group (LIG; n = 12), moderate-intensity group (MIG; n = 9), and high-intensity group (HIG; n = 8). All subjects trained for 10 weeks, 4-5 days a week, in a periodized routine using the same exercises and training volume (expressed as total number of repetitions performed at intensities equal to or greater than 60% of 1RM), but different programmed total repetitions at intensities of >90-100% of 1RM for the entire 10-week period: LIG (46 repetitions), MIG (93 repetitions), and HIG (184 repetitions). During the training period, MIG and LIG showed a significant increase (p < 0.01-0.05) for C&J (10.5% and 3% for MIG and LIG, respectively) and Sq (9.5% and 5.3% for MIG and LIG, respectively), whereas in HIG the increase took place only in Sq (6.9%, p < 0.05). A calculation of effect sizes revealed greater strength gains in the MIG than in HIG or LIG. There were no significant differences between LIG and HIG training volume-induced strength gains. All the subjects in HIG were unable to fully accomplish the repetitions programmed at relative intensities greater than 90% of 1RM. The present results indicate that short-term resistance training using moderate volumes of high relative intensity tended to produce higher enhancements in weightlifting performance compared with low and high volumes of high relative training intensities of equal total volume in experienced, trained young weightlifters. Therefore, for the present population of weightlifters, it may be beneficial to use the MIG training protocol to improve the weightlifting program at least in a short-term (10 weeks) cycle of training.
-
Just be careful how much you demonize cortisol. Some cortisol post training provides the necessary inflammatory response that triggers cytokine and autocrine and paracrine growth factor release at the muscle tissue level to begin the digestion of damaged muscle fibers, which is then replaced by ribosomal anabolic reconstruction of damaged fibers. It's a natural process. Some evil is necessary for good to prevail, is a simplistic way of thinking about it.
There's also a lot of talk that the increased cortisol levels as a result of resistance training have little effect on muscle catabolism, and are in fact generally responsible for helping spark gluconeogenesis to fuel repeated muscle contractions (along with glucagon). And that makes a lot of sense, when we all stop and think about it.
Low reps = primarily using ATP, CP, and a sparingly small amount of glycogen as fuel.
High reps = uses all available ATP and CP, and lots of glycogen. So, you need some gluconeogenesis at the liver to supply glucose to muscles for passive diffusion via the Glut receptors (usually Glut 1).
This is my current line of thinking on the issue. It changes every few months when some crack researcher changes it for me with a crazy new study.
i agree it is needed - however only in small amounts.
the low rep group does produce small amounts of cortisol, just not as much as the others.
Talking of atp, i came across an interesting study that shows that its atp depletion that regulates the protein synthesis responce - regardless of rep/weight ranges. Just when you think you understand it....... ;D
-
i did high volume for years. eventually i gave up on bodybuilding to focus on powerlifting. i started a program doing 80% squat,dead,bench at low reps with a few isolation exercises here and there. diet -didnt even pay attention just ate normal..
i ended up getting more muscle mass then i did when i was doing a ''bodybuilding'' routine stuffing my face with 300+ grams of protein a day.
-
Right -- AMP levels is responsible for a lot of enzymatic regulation in the muscle. It does also play a role in protein synthesis. But, if all you had to do was increase AMP levels in the muscles to trigger protein synthesis to the degree that you'd see hypertrophy, then wouldn't all distance runners be absolutely massive?
AMP plays a role, along with a whole bunch of other things in some cosmic soupy enzymatic mess that's so intricately inter-related, it boggles the mind. We may never grasp the whole nest. But, we try. That's the important part. Each little puzzle piece brings the picture into focus and triggers a search for the next piece.
actually disregard my coments on the atp study. i just noticed they gave each participant an equal constant infusion of leucine starting 160 mins before and continuing up to 150 mins after - and they wonder why protein synthesis was equal regardless of weight ::)
why bother do these studies >:(
i did high volume for years. eventually i gave up on bodybuilding to focus on powerlifting. i started a program doing 80% squat,dead,bench at low reps with a few isolation exercises here and there. diet -didnt even pay attention just ate normal..
i ended up getting more muscle mass then i did when i was doing a ''bodybuilding'' routine stuffing my face with 300+ grams of protein a day.
that seems to be most peoples experience - it seems the more we learn, the more we go back to the basics 8)
-
1. you are 21, your test is through the roof right now, and anything you do will work.
2. At 21 i also believed that high volume sets produced hypertrophy and i did get bigger and stronger, however strength and mass gains quickly stopped.
3. i have at no point said high volume sets do not induce hypertrophy - the studies i am quoting show they do - however i am simply reporting what the studies have found and what i have found through personal experimentation over 13 years, that they are NOT optimal.
4. you are a personal trainer, at 21 how long have you been at this? surely you have come across someone who found the volume too taxing? or stalled in their gains? if not - you will, what will you do then ???
Well actually I just recently turned 23 ;D, but do see your point. I have been a Personal trainer for 4 years now and I love it. I guess I wasn't very clear last night. I do utilize lower rep ranges with my clients, as doing sets based off 100 reps would be quite taxing after a while. I change things up so much my clients never know what to expect, one week we'll do 4 x 25, and the next we will do 4 x 12 or 8 x 8 or whatever I feel like making themself, or myself do. As long as factors keep changing my clients keep progressing be it strength, mass, body fat loss, weight loss, and they always come back for more, lol
-
I can't understand the logic in light weights for hypertrophy and strength versus a heavy weight. I'm open minded though, so a well thought out explanation will make me scratch the noodle and if it's good, I'll admit I'm wrong and be shamed for evermore, GB style!
I agree that the light weights will not build as much strength, I am sure of that. Now, if one week I do 5 x 20, and the next I 4 x 25 with the same or sometimes more weight, is that getting stronger? I don't know you be the judge. I for one could give a shit how strong I am, I focus on the muscle and use as much weight as I can for my desired rep range but stay in good form and use mind muscle connection to really focus on the target muscle. Just doing that I can make 20 lb dumbbell feel like 40 and 50 lb curls used. I don't know it works for me and I will stick to it, like panda said I'm young and test levels are through the roof (of that I am sure of ;D) and will grow just about anything. But then again my clients who are over 40 also see results so its whatever.
-
You meatheads that all go off when you hear "anaerobic mixed with aerobic" need to open your mind, sheep.
All of you that are "HEAVY or GO HOME" are so delusional into thinking thats the only way to increase muscle. ::)
Do you honestly think everyone that works out and his significant size (relatively low bodyfat) trains like that?
Im not saying pink dumbbells and weakass light weight... its OK to switch between 300 for 5 reps on bench and 10-15 reps of 240-260.
Everybody undermines the "45-1 hour" workout time frame. If you bust your ass as hard as you can with weight training for 1 hour, little rest between sets, high volume training can result in a great workout, JUST AS GOOD/BETTER as heavy weights.
-
You meatheads that all go off when you hear "anaerobic mixed with aerobic" need to open your mind, sheep.
All of you that are "HEAVY or GO HOME" are so delusional into thinking thats the only way to increase muscle. ::)
Do you honestly think everyone that works out and his significant size (relatively low bodyfat) trains like that?
Im not saying pink dumbbells and weakass light weight... its OK to switch between 300 for 5 reps on bench and 10-15 reps of 240-260.
Everybody undermines the "45-1 hour" workout time frame. If you bust your ass as hard as you can with weight training for 1 hour, little rest between sets, high volume training can result in a great workout, JUST AS GOOD/BETTER as heavy weights.
Well said, also, have you noticed how much less your joints hurt when you do higher volume versus heavier strength training as the norm. This is one of the biggest factors for my choice in higher volume training, as my "standard" workout, but heavy weight low reps now and then doesn't hurt.
-
Hell yes! Heavy weights make you grow. There are a lot of big guys out there who train naturally. I throw around some heavy weights and my physique shows it.
-
unbelievable :o
you know, jason i think you and boomstack are right. i now realise that all these studies are wrong - every one of the 37 quoted in this meta-analysis that say heavier lower rep sets are better for stength and mass or the 140 studies the other meta analysis i posted. ::)
i should have been busting my balls with heavy ass sets of 20 and 25 reps with the pink dumbells for optimum size ::)
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.
PMID: 15142003 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
you 2 must be quite the physical speciments to bend the laws of physiology like this and disprove this amount of overwhelming evidence.
jason, do you have any pics of your clients? if you can post 1 pic of any one of them that shows the progress they made also can you tell me of the gains they have made since working with you - and their excercise history that would be great too.
-
unbelievable :o
you know, jason i think you and boomstack are right. i now realise that all these studies are wrong - every one of the 37 quoted in this meta-analysis that say heavier lower rep sets are better for stength and mass or the 140 studies the other meta analysis i posted. ::)
i should have been busting my balls with heavy ass sets of 20 and 25 reps with the pink dumbells for optimum size ::)
you 2 must be quite the physical speciments to bend the laws of physiology like this and disprove this amount of overwhelming evidence.
jason, do you have any pics of your clients? if you can post 1 pic of any one of them that shows the progress they made also can you tell me of the gains they have made since working with you - and their excercise history that would be great too.
I don't think your reading my post, cause I have said numerous times that I agree with what your saying, but feel that you should utilize every type of training for maximum benefit. There are so many paths to hypertrophy, why use just one. No I don't take pictures of my clients so I cannot prove these results, I use referral letters and word of mouth and I do just fine.
-
Thank you! You lift for the way you want to look. I used to lift heavy all the time, however I found myself looking bulky and not cut. When I started lifting lighter, controlling the weight more, the striations and vascularity really started coming through. I lost "bulk" but size wise I look bigger @ 188 lbs now then I did @ 208 then.
you lost fat
E
-
By your example, then I would say yes, you got stronger. You did more weight for more reps. I don't think anyone would argue that you've become weaker doing that.
By I don't get your point.
I never meant to say lift heavy at the expense of form, or feeling a muscle work. So we agree there.
If you do 4 x 25 reps even, you'll get stronger than if you do nothing. But if you did 10 x 10, you'd get bigger and stronger than the guy who did 4 x 25. Same number of reps in the workout. But by only having to do 10 reps, you can lift more weight.
Surely, I think we can all agree that if you went from curling 100 pounds for 5 to curling 100 pounds for 16 reps, that your arms would get bigger. So, obviously, resistance is key to hypertrophy. So why not focus on that variable? How can lighter weights make you bigger? Even if you could give a shit about strength...heavier weights make bigger muscles.
I know you're trying to make a point, but I'm not getting it.
To sum up my point "food builds muscle" period. As long as your tearing it up in the gym you will build muscle if you eat enough protein and calories. All the rep scheme bullshit just a way to hit the body through different pathways. I actually love 10 x 10 and use it quite often. But like I said before I change it up every week, and the weights I use are as heavy as I can go in strict form with good mind muscle connection. When I do that the weights I use others would think are pussy weights but whatever I'm growing and look great.
-
To sum up my point "food builds muscle" period. As long as your tearing it up in the gym you will build muscle if you eat enough protein and calories. All the rep scheme bullshit just a way to hit the body through different pathways. I actually love 10 x 10 and use it quite often. But like I said before I change it up every week, and the weights I use are as heavy as I can go in strict form with good mind muscle connection. When I do that the weights I use others would think are pussy weights but whatever I'm growing and look great.
sounds like you look great, you should post a picture.
-
you lost fat
E
Yes I did lose fat of course, however, my lean body mass at 208 was around 160 lbs while at 188 now and 172lbs lbm. So did I build muscle? Also, my diet didn't change at all. That being said I'm also 23 and have a super fast metabolism.
-
sounds like you look great, you should post a picture.
I will post a picture soon, got some from my photo shoot last year that I need to get put on this computer. The ones from my show had horrible lighting and aren't worth posting. I wouldn't say I look great by pro bodybuilder terms but for a natty and former fat kid I look and feel great and thats all that matters to me
-
Food does build muscle. No arguments there.
And hard training in the gym is good. No arguments there either.
I think we agree to disagree on the benefits of specific rep schemes being critical to progress. Fair enough. Hope you make good progress, and stay healthy. All the best to you man.
Thank you and same to you as well. I don't necessarily disagree with yall, its just I refuse to believe that there is one way of lifting and working out that is best for muscle building. I think its a combination of all different factors thrown in and utilized together.
-
Here you go quaker. My pic from photo shoot in august of 2007. I was about 180 in this pic right after I competed in my first show. I have gained about 10 lbs since but just don't have any recent pics.
-
Here you go quaker. My pic from photo shoot in august of 2007. I was about 180 in this pic right after I competed in my first show. I have gained about 10 lbs since but just don't have any recent pics.
you look good dude, props.
-
Here you go quaker. My pic from photo shoot in august of 2007. I was about 180 in this pic right after I competed in my first show. I have gained about 10 lbs since but just don't have any recent pics.
Props for posting a pic but I think you chose the wrong one. :-\
-
you look good dude, props.
Thank you, hard to believe I graduated high school in 2004 at 235 lbs with a 40 inch waist. Its been a long road.
-
Props for posting a pic but I think you chose the wrong one. :-\
I'm sorry, did you want one with me oiled up in a thong :D, jus kiddin man. I took that pic from my facebook, I have more but am so not ashamed of it. I said before I graduated high school at 235 lbs and that was just 4 years ago.
-
Good physique bourne. Props
Thanks man, "light weight", "yeah buddaayyy!!!!" lol. Yeah I went to rhino with toney freeman and ronnie coleman after the 2007 olympia finals in vegas and ronnie actually said yeah buddy in the strip club. I almost died laughing
-
Here you go quaker. My pic from photo shoot in august of 2007. I was about 180 in this pic right after I competed in my first show. I have gained about 10 lbs since but just don't have any recent pics.
looking good , however just think how much more muscle you would have if you used low reps and heavy weight ;D
-
looking good , however just think how much more muscle you would have if you used low reps and heavy weight ;D
i don't think the guy claimed to be a huge massive bodybuilder or even that he wanted to be one, dude looks like a fitness type guy or Men's Health type build which there's nothing wrong with at all, he said his whole goal was to lose weight and get fit, honestly he looks like the type of guy who picks up a lot of high quality pusssy.
-
i don't think the guy claimed to be a huge massive bodybuilder or even that he wanted to be one, dude looks like a fitness type guy or Men's Health type build which there's nothing wrong with at all, he said his whole goal was to lose weight and get fit, honestly he looks like the type of guy who picks up a lot of high quality pusssy.
i agree - he looks a bit like a chipendale with his clothes on ;D
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z98/goldengalleria/cdera05.jpg)
-
i don't think the guy claimed to be a huge massive bodybuilder or even that he wanted to be one, dude looks like a fitness type guy or Men's Health type build which there's nothing wrong with at all, he said his whole goal was to lose weight and get fit, honestly he looks like the type of guy who picks up a lot of high quality pusssy.
Thanks brotha, yes that is my goal to be fit and healthy. I compete but only on the regional level, no aspirations to become a pro or even national level competitor. I want to slowly gain more mass and eventually end up at about 198 and 6% b.f. give or take.
-
Thanks brotha, yes that is my goal to be fit and healthy. I compete but only on the regional level, no aspirations to become a pro or even national level competitor. I want to slowly gain more mass and eventually end up at about 198 and 6% b.f. give or take.
good luck. you are still young with plenty of time. i'm sure you will do it. 8)
-
don't sacrifice form for using heavy weight unless it's only for a set or two. :( :D
-
Props Jason Bourne, props.
-
Post of the year.
+1