I was thinking the other day about why powerlifters, despite their greater strengh, as well as those who do one-set-to-failure protocols, do not grow muscles like bodybuilders who do a greater volume of work. These are my conclusions: hypertrophy of muscle fibers is but one mechanism through which muscles increase in strengh. Increasing strengh with few reps cause an increase in nervous as well as metabolic muscular efficiency without, necessarily, concomitant increases in the cross-sectional area of muscle. Strengh can be increased via increased ATP expedenture by increased mitochondrial density, creatine phosphate synthesis, increased motor neural number and/or activation via increased receptor sensitivity to Calcium ions, efficiency of lactic acid clearance ratio, etc. Only when muscular and neuromuscular metabolic function is maximized does the muscle increase it's cross-sectional area to increase strengh, because increasing strengh via improved metabolic function is less straining and a more efficient use of bodily resources than building more muscular tissue. The workload imposed by powerlifting style training doesen't strain the muscle fiber's ability to increase it's contractile force beyond what it can by becoming more efficient.
The problem is that there are limits to which muscle efficiency can be maximized. Following this point, only increases in the cross sectional area of muscle will result in strengh increases. Suppose you load a bar with 200 lbs and you have enough motor neuronal efficiency, ATP reserves and mucle fibers to bench it once for 300 lbs. If you bench it once, 100% of your motor neurons will fire and all ATP will be used. Now, imagine that instead of benching it once for 300 lbs, you load the bar with 200 lbs and do 10 reps. You will use the same amount of stored ATP for those 10 reps that you'd use for benching 300 lbs for one and you'll be demanding as much from your nervous system and all muscle fibers will need to contract for you to complete your tenth rep. Now you rest for a minute, and go again. Only 50% of your fibers will have recovered from the first set, and ATP will have been depleted significantly as well as the lactic acid won't have been completely removed from sites. The demand you put on the muscles will indicate that the further strengh increases with this work load exceeds what the current muscle fibers can accomplish with it's size. Since it is impossible to increase strengh by increasing the density of actin/myosin bridges that compose muscular fibers and are responsble for their contractive ability, the only way to increase the muscle's strengh is to increase the proteinaceous volume of actin and myoson itself. Result: hypertrophy. This explains why a powerlifter has similar muscular efficiency to a bodybuilder but less muscular volume.
Conclusion: muscular hypertrophy is only one of the mechanisms skeletal muscle have to become stronger and it is secondary in activation to several others. To achieve muscular hypertrophy, huge weights with low work load is ineffective because there is enormous room for your muscles to grow in strengh before growing in size. You'll need to use gigantic weights to achieve only a moderate degree of hypertrophy with a few contractions.
Conclusion II: To maximize hypertrophy, increase strengh enormously first via powerlifting or one-set-to-failure protocols, then stagnate the weight you're using and work on increasind the amount of work you can perform with that weight. Huge gains in the cross sectional area of muscle will follow. Once volume has increased to the point where you have observed that your gains have stagnated, work on increasing your strengh agains via powerlifting type training. Repeat ad infinitum.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Copy-and-paste plagiarism what?Nope, suckmymuscle is that god damn smart and knowledgeable I would take everything he types very seriously
Your idol brought muscle mass to a new level with a one set per exercise to failure protocol
btw, powerlifters often do large amounts of volume with the exception of a meet
He's not my idol. Dorian did 3 sets per exercise for the first 9 years of his career. He also used massive amounts of drugs. Furthermore, after so many years of training he achieved an incredible neuromuscular efficiency which allowed him to stress muscle fibers to a much higher degree than what an average Joe can.
And the point stands: 99% of people who do low volume with heavy weights don't achieve as much hypertrophy as bodybuilders who do multiple sets. This is a fact. Compare the muscle mass of professional powerlifters and bodybuilders, both on steroids, and the bodybuilders are much larger despite being weaker. Riddle me that? Look, also, at all the people who do one-set-to-failure and experience huge increases in strengh but no muscle gain. My point stands.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
He's not my idol. Dorian did 3 sets per exercise for the first 9 years of his career. He also used massive amounts of drugs. Furthermore, after so many years of training he achieved an incredible neuromuscular efficiency which allowed him to stress muscle fibers to a much higher degree than what an average Joe can.You mention powerlifters, steroids aside, they tend to be the bigger/ denser people between themselves and natural bodybuilders.
And the point stands: 99% of people who do low volume with heavy weights don't achieve as much hypertrophy as bodybuilders who do multiple sets. This is a fact. Compare the muscle mass of professional powerlifters and bodybuilders, both on steroids, and the bodybuilders are much larger despite being weaker. Riddle me that? Look, also, at all the people who do one-set-to-failure and experience huge increases in strengh but no muscle gain. My point stands.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Thats why powerlifters are 300 lb plus behemoths? They don't look like bodybuilders because they train bench, squat, deadlift.. Mainly, but if they did a cut they would still be beasts.. IdiotGood point Trey Brewer didn't look all that impressive when he got fat
Cliffs: they don't look like bodybuilders because of there muscles are hidden in fat
It must also be noted that Dorian never did only one set even later in his career. He did several sets of one exercise before an all out ''Work'' set. People get confused about the volume Doz did. btw, his warm up sets were like most peoples all out sets.
Thats why powerlifters are 300 lb plus behemoths?
remember that study that tested 3 types of people. powerlifters,bodybuilders, and sumo wrestlers.. the sumos had the highest percentage of muscle and they dont even touch weights.lol
End of the day, if you want to get significantly bigger at some point you've got to get stronger, which will entail cutting your volume down
I really want to see this study, and I'm calling epic bullshit on it right now. Maybe a 7' tall sumo wrestler with 10" wrists and who weights 600 lbs has more lean muscle mass than a natural 220 lbs bodybuilder. So what? What does this prove except that obese people have more muscle than thin people because they need to carry their weight around all day, and that a 7' tall man with huge bones naturally has more muscle than a 5'10 man with average sized bones?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Sure. I never claimed otherwise. My point is that moderate strengh increases with higher volume work better at increasing mass than huge strengh increases with low volume.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
its somewhere over at IM... but a more accurate comparision would be to take 2 teenagers, put one on a high volume, one on a low volume..I'd have to agree - most bodybuilders build a foundation of size and strength by doing deadlifts, bench press, and squat. Compound moves build mass more than auxilary moves, no?
i would bet my life the kid focusing on his deadlift will be a hellofa lot bigger then the kid doing rep after rep of cable rows
Lol...you guys are fucking stupid. You can't use the weight of powerlifters to gauge the success of their training methods at increasing muscle size. Most powerlifters and strongman are tall men with huge bones and they often carry significantly more bodyfat than what a ripped bodybuilder does. Sure, a 6'4 man with 9" wrists and 15% bodyfat will weight more than a 5'10 bodybuilder with tiny joints, like Flex Wheeler, who is ripped to the bone. When you adjust for height, size of skeleton and bodyfat, the bodybuilder carries more muscle. Even if the powerlifter still has more lean muscle mass when you bring down his bodyfat to the level of the bodybuilder, the latter will have more for what his stature and skeleton can support. The size of muscles are proportional to bones because muscles need to be naturally strong to move them. This is very basic physiology and physics.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Lol...you guys are fucking stupid. You can't use the weight of powerlifters to gauge the success of their training methods at increasing muscle size. Most powerlifters and strongman are tall men with huge bones and they often carry significantly more bodyfat than what a ripped bodybuilder does. Sure, a 6'4 man with 9" wrists and 15% bodyfat will weight more than a 5'10 bodybuilder with tiny joints, like Flex Wheeler, who is ripped to the bone. When you adjust for height, size of skeleton and bodyfat, the bodybuilder carries more muscle. Even if the powerlifter still weights more when you bring down his bodyfat to the level of the bodybuilder, the latter will have more for what his stature and skeleton can support. The size of muscles are proportional to bones because muscles need to be naturally strong to move them. This is very basic physiology and physics.I disagree completely. You think a 230 Flex Wheeler has more muscle on his frame than a 350lb. Strongman competitor? No way.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I'd have to agree - most bodybuilders build a foundation of size and strength by doing deadlifts, bench press, and squat. Compound moves build mass more than auxilary moves, no?
your muscles and calcium bone mass grows simultaneously eating meat depletes calcium
I disagree completely. You think a 230 Flex Wheeler has more muscle on his frame than a 350lb. Strongman competitor? No way.
Australian scientist have confirmed Arthur Jones was right all along, one set per exercise is all thats needed.
http://exercise.about.com/cs/weightlifting/a/onesettraining.htm
Wow. You can't read. It is appaling. I said that when you adjust for height, bone size and bodyfat, the bodybuilder will have more muscle mass proportionally even if his absolute muscle mass is smaller. Wow, you're dumb.Hey dipshit, look at football players and other athletes in sports such as track & field. They carry lots of muscle. And nice theory about adjusting for proportionality - way too many variables there to call me dumb because I disagree with this "theory" you have pulled out of your ass! I doubt Mariusz Pudjianowski carries less muscle than Flex no matter how many "adjustments" you make. ::)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Eating too much protein in general Johnny, depletes calcium, the body has to use it to deal with all the excess.
Hey dipshit, look at football players and other athletes in sports such as track & field. They carry lots of muscle. And nice theory about adjusting for proportionality - way too many variables there to call me dumb because I disagree with this "theory" you have pulled out of your ass! I doubt Mariusz Pudjianowski carries less muscle than Flex no matter how many "adjustments" you make.
Royal Lion, you're new here, I'll let you in on something,
Suckymymuscle is getbigs laughing stock who suffers from severe insecurity issues and tries to cover it up by various means, one of them is being a know it all wannabe scientist.
Your condescending attitude doesen't suit you, because you're a stupid person. So I think you should tone down a little.
As for your point, yes, Wheeler or any other bodybuilder does carry more muscle when you adjust for height, bone structure and bodyfat. And Mariusz is a special case, because he trains like a bodybuilder and not like a pure powerlifter. I've seen him doing up to five sets of squats pyramiding down from 12 reps in the first to three in the last, while resting no more than a couple minutes between sets, and that's hardly powerlifting training. He also does exercises like dumbbel curls that no powerlifter cares to do. Even so, he doesen't carry as much mass in relation to his natural size as a pro bodybuilder.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
You can't even understand the studies you post, and I'm supposed to be offended by what you have to say? Fail. You realize now what an ass you look for having me correct and dismiss your "proof", not with evidence from another study, but simply by pointing out that your study doesen't even claim what you think it does. Brutal self-ownage, idiot. You must feel great about yourself now. ;D ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Brutal self-ownage, idiot. You must feel great about yourself now. ;D ;)
Are you kidding? Have you seen the size of Mariusz? Along with many other strongmen?
Read what I wrote again,Ah, reassures me that I'm not crazy for using a two set pre-exhaust training method.
including the article.
"The Physician and Sports Medicine agrees. In a comparison of several different studies, only one found that multiple sets elicited greater strength gains than single set training, while the other studies found no significant difference. Conclusion? You can get a great workout using single-set training methods, as long as you focus on quality, not quantity. "
You must feel great about yourself now. ;D ;)
Are you kidding? Have you seen the size of Mariusz? Along with many other strongmen?
Have you seen the size of Mariusz bones? Are you aware that he's over 6'1, whilst the average pro bodybuilder is 5'8? Sure, he probably has more absolute mass than most pros - except for guys like Ruhl, Ronnie, etc -, but he is smaller proportionally.
And again, Mariusz doesen't train like a powerlifter nor does he do one-set-to-failure, so using him as an example is futile.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Read what I wrote again,
including the article.
"The Physician and Sports Medicine agrees. In a comparison of several different studies, only one found that multiple sets elicited greater strength gains than single set training, while the other studies found no significant difference. Conclusion? You can get a great workout using single-set training methods, as long as you focus on quality, not quantity. "
not fair because strongmen have incredible genetics and muscle to begin with.. pro bodybuilders have to struggle with horrible genetics. ::)
again.. dont compare pro anything.. take the average gym rats and i bet the guy with the biggest squat has the biggest legs.
suckmymuscle has been reading way to many flex articles.
Yes but what I'm saying is that the guy is far more muscular than 95 percent of bodybuilders. Forget the training method it took to get there.
I already told you to go back to seventh grade. Again, the quote you posted mentions strengh, not muscular size. Where is a quote claiming that one-set-to-failure elicits greater muscle mass gains than multiple sets? Yeah, I thought so. You got owned again in the same way. Damn, you truly are a Mensa member. :P
SUCKMYMUSCLE
You got owned again in the same way. Damn, you truly are a Mensa member. :P
Yeah, surely Mariusz became the leading world strongman by focusing on multiple sets of dumbell curls and cable flyes.
And what about football players
and track & field athletes??
Also, Dorian has always asserted that he gained the most muscle doing HIT training.
Your shit attitude is based on nothing but far-reaching speculation.
If you adjust for this and for that and then some more of this, then Flex Wheeler has more muscle than a strongman who outweighs him by 80 lbs and is lean. Oh brother!
Also, today's bodybuilders look like shit for 90% of the year anyways - their muscle comes from drugs and I highly doubt the amount of volume they do makes much of a difference. As long as a muscle is damaged via training and then repaired, it will grow.
Yes - alert to all powerlifters, stop wasting your time lifting heavy weights for less than 6 reps. If you really want to grow, start doing 5 sets of 15 reps with lighter weights. You'll explode!!!!
Holy shit - where to start with your epic lack of common sense.
Dorian Yates - he started training at a relatively late age and began competing shortly thereafter; from his early Olympia days he was known as a low volume lifter. In 93 for instance he was only spending 3.5 hrs per week in the gym. Not sure where your getting the 9 years of high volume from?
Football players - how many linebackers in the NFL weigh more than 250?
How many are lean?
How many train like a bodybuilder?
Track & Field - look at an olympic sprinter? how about a shotput thrower? Javeline? Hammer throw? All carry tons of muscle and don't train like a bodybuilder.
The bottom line is that regardless of volume a muscle will grow if it is torn down and then repaired.
And yes, genius, I understand your point about Flex's relative higher amount of muscle. However, it is pure speculation to assume that. To sit on here and insult others based on what is nothing more than a guess on your part makes little sense.
Never claimed otherwise; what I'm claiming is that the volume of work is as important or more than the weight overload imposed on muscles. You can't read. And you suck.
You are a fucking moron. When did Dorian Yates claim he gained the most mass? And, what style of training does he recommend for gaining the most mass? That's right, low volume. To this day he recommends it even for beginners, just watch any one his recent seminars.
The morons can't see what they are, or how badly they are getting owned, and they insult those who are more intelligent than themselves ad nauseum for no other reason than spite.
I have Blood&Guts and Dorian states he trained for 9 years with multiple sets. He started training in 1982, btw. The more you try to debate me, the deeper the hole you dig. I have already told you that you're stupid so why do you even try?
The average stature of NFL players is 6'5, and they have enormous bones. It would be surprising if they did not weight more than 250 lbs. Again, how the fuck does this prove that powerlifting training works for mass? And by the way, lots of guys in the NFL train with multiple sets, so your argument - as usual - is redundant.
Irrelevant. Even if lean at over 250 lbs, they have less mass proportionally than pro bodybuilders because they are much taller and heavier boned.
First of all, this is irrelevant. Even if they train like powerlifters, their mass is smaller than that of a pro bodybuilder when you adjust for height and skeletal frame size. Answering yoru question, quite a few. EAS used to sponsor the Denver Broncos, and I read their training in MuscleMedia years ago and most did multiple sets on the bench, squats and deads, and also did bodybuilding exercises like leg extensions.
Do they train with low volume and ultra heavy weights, genius? No. Their training, in fact, is far more similar to that of a bodybuilder than that of a powerlifter. Again, you get owned by your own stupid arguments. ;D
Never claimed otherwise; what I'm claiming is that the volume of work is as important or more than the weight overload imposed on muscles. You can't read. And you suck.
No, this in particular is not a speculation, because anyone with two eyes and a working brain can see that pro bodybuilders are significantly more muscular for their frames than powerlifters, even if powerlifters are larger and heavier. Fail. Again.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
In fact this is the simple way to think about it. Let's say high volume is really the way to go. Let's also say that there is no disputing that a low volume approach is best for gaining strength. Now take your average gymrat. How is he going to keep improving/growing if he NEVER switches to a low volume approach to focus on strength-building so that ultimately, in the long-run he can use heavier poundages in ALL his sets. I think low volume training has a very important indirect effect on hypertrophy.I agree with all your post. This one in particular. As a natty I think you have to get stronger to get bigger no way around it. I have done all the 10 sets of 10 stuff and it does nothing for me. A pump yes, growth, no not really. Build the base first. Get as strong as possible then rep it out, and repeat
You are a fucking moron. When did Dorian Yates claim he gained the most mass?
And, what style of training does he recommend for gaining the most mass?
That's right, low volume.
To this day he recommends it even for beginners, just watch any one his recent seminars.
You think Olympic sprinters train like bodybuilders? Jesus Christ....where to even begin.
Have you ever heard of a fast twitch muscle fiber? An olympic lift, e.g. a power clean, snatch, or jump squat? These are done at low reps and they build the explosive fast twitch muscle fibers for sprinting.
Sorry, but large bones alone do not account for 250lb linebackers being muscular and lean. Someone who is 250lbs and runs a 4.5 40 yard dash does not train like a bodybuilder. See above bried fast twitch muscle fiber analysis.
Perhaps this is all too complicated for you.
If you think olympic sprinters train multiple sets for 6-8 reps then this debate is far too advanced for you. For fucksake, powerlifters and olympic lifters stress fast twitch muscle fibers - you know the explosive ones - and to effectively do this requires low reps with heavy weight. Are you missing something with this relatively basic concept?
You can search this board yourself and find the recent Dorian seminar where he specifically states that he recommends HIT training for EVERYONE. His 3 sets includes a pure warm-up followed by a more intense set and then a final set to failure. This 3 set workout = low volume.
Lol...I linebacker has lots of muscle because he is tall and has big bones??
Here is your quote: "the Linebacker weights 250 lbs because he's tall and has lots of muscle because his bones are huge. It's not the bones per se that give him the weight, moron, but the large muscle mass those bones support. He has as much muscle as the bodybuilder, but the bodybuilder packs a much greater muscular development because he's shorter with a smaller frame, and thus his potential to carry muscle is much smaller. Pound for pound, his bones support a lot more muscle than the foorball player. Now STFU retard. Your stupidity bores me."
WTF are you saying here?? The linebacker has more muscle, but the bodybuilder has more muscular development? Which bodybuilder are we talkin about? So you are saying that Flex Wheeler has more muscle than say a prime Gunter because he was shorter and had a smaller frame? Nice logic there. So, the shorter smaller framed guys always have more muscle despite being outweighed by 40-50lbs?
Arrogant attitude....you are quite the hypocrite there. Now go SUCK YOUR OWN MUSCLE
I'm still shaking my head in disbelief at Royal Lion's example of the sprinter, since:
1. Sprinters don't train like powerlifters, so even if they were huge his point would be irrelevant, and...
2. Bodybuilders who train with multiple sets have much larger muscle mass than sprinters, even in the quads.
I have difficulty understanding retard logic. Can someone explain why he brought this up in the first place?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
He's not my idol. Dorian did 3 sets per exercise for the first 9 years of his career. He also used massive amounts of drugs. Furthermore, after so many years of training he achieved an incredible neuromuscular efficiency which allowed him to stress muscle fibers to a much higher degree than what an average Joe can.
Brutal incorrect cause/effect conclusions, as one expects from sucky. It's called living in your own world answerable to no one except the little voices within the head. :'(Its funny because Dorian said that exact same thing about addressing drug use in bodybuilding. He says its still your own body's functions that build muscle etc...
It's always the novices who try to separate the drug users from naturals, as if the entire world of training stands on it's head simply due to drugs when in fact the fundamentals stay the same. The drugs only further the same effects.
Yates was doing 2 sets per exercise, not 3, which is low volume.
The theory about Yates being more efficient is pure speculation, sucky trying desperately to draw conclusions.
that's why i do powerlifting cycle from september to march, and bodybuilding style for the rest of years...You have a very good physique too... I like the look
that's why i do powerlifting cycle from september to march, and bodybuilding style for the rest of years...During which phase do you gain the most muscle? I'm sure the major strength gains occur during the powerlifting phase.
During which phase do you gain the most muscle?I would say both phases would have a contributing effect.
I am not asserting that volume training does not create muscle hypertrophy; however, I am asserting that low reps with high weights (less volume) can be and is equally effective.
Sprinters focus primarily on olympic lifts, e.g. power cleans, push press, snatches, etc., but also do a lot of deadlifting and squatting with LOW reps at HIGH weight. This is to maximize fast twitch muscle fibers for explosive power. Sprinters DO NOT train like bodybuilders
- their workouts are much more similar to powerlifting. And, duh, sprinters focus primarily on running - so of course they do not have the size of either a powerlifter or bodybuilder, but are nonetheless muscular (see pics).
This is relevant to our discussion because it proves that lower volume training does effectively build muscle.
You are seriously embarrassing yourself man. Do a little research, educate yourself just a little with the basics of training, and then get back to me. Honestly, spend two seconds of your ignorant time doing this before you get on here and attempt to insult me.
sprinter’s legs are usually much more muscular than the legs of any other types of runners. This is because the sprinter gains a great deal of power from the legs and building up these muscles helps to give him the explosiveness he needs to propel himself over the course as quickly as possible.
Weight lifting exercises which are active but also focus on the lower body are very important for sprinters. This includes exercises such as weighted lunges and weighted squats. When performing these exercises sprinters should be focusing on using heavier weights and performing fewer repetitions. This will help to encourage muscle growth which is necessary for improved speed.
If you took a survey of most average guys I am willing to bet that 99.9% of them would choose to look like an Olympic sprinter over just about any other physique option you gave them.
Holy shit - where to start with your epic lack of common sense.
Dorian Yates - he started training at a relatively late age and began competing shortly thereafter; from his early Olympia days he was known as a low volume lifter. In 93 for instance he was only spending 3.5 hrs per week in the gym. Not sure where your getting the 9 years of high volume from?
Football players - how many linebackers in the NFL weigh more than 250? How many are lean? How many train like a bodybuilder?
Track & Field - look at an olympic sprinter? how about a shotput thrower? Javeline? Hammer throw? All carry tons of muscle and don't train like a bodybuilder.
The bottom line is that regardless of volume a muscle will grow if it is torn down and then repaired. I agree that muscles also respond to high volume training; however, I disagree that this method is predominatly better than strength training.
And yes, genius, I understand your point about Flex's relative higher amount of muscle. However, it is pure speculation to assume that. To sit on here and insult others based on what is nothing more than a guess on your part makes little sense.
Yes, but which training protocol would produce the greater muscle building effect...
FUCK.
you're speaking about guy using high dose of aas and gh.
i think the topic is for natural guy.
whatever you training style you can gain muscle with 20ui gh /day and 1000 mg of test e a week.
Brutal incorrect cause/effect conclusions, as one expects from sucky. It's called living in your own world answerable to no one except the little voices within the head. :'(
It's always the novices who try to separate the drug users from naturals, as if the entire world of training stands on it's head simply due to drugs when in fact the fundamentals stay the same. The drugs only further the same effects.
Yates was doing 2 sets per exercise, not 3, which is low volume.
The theory about Yates being more efficient is pure speculation, sucky trying desperately to draw conclusions.
Sprinter analogy is a good example and stands.
QuoteIt's always the novices who try to separate the drug users from naturals, as if the entire world of training stands on it's head simply due to drugs when in fact the fundamentals stay the same. The drugs only further the same effects.
Duh...that's the reason why I used as an example as sprinter who was famous for using steroids, exactly so that the greater muscle mass of the bodybuilder can't be credited to the drugs. Brutal "I can't read" syndrome. :-\
SUCKMYMUSCLE
For always claiming "I own Blood & Guts" one would that ISUCKMYMUSCLE would realize that even 3 sets per exercise, including warm-ups is relatively low volume. He is so caught up in feeding his false sense of security by insulting everyone else that he overlooks simple, basic concepts.
As for roids vs. natural, I think a natty will see better results with higher intensity, less volume, and more recovery; although I do agree that periodization is best at some point to keep muscles from adapting to a particular program.
LOL Did you see pics of Dorian before he lifted? he was scrawny and ultra skinny , not naturaly muscular at all.
As for Dorian Yates, you can't compare the guy to an average Joe. You just can't. The guy is a fucking freak of Nature. Even if he never touched a weight, he'd still weight 200 lbs with single-digit bodyfat at a height of 5'10. He is naturally that muscular.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
During which phase do you gain the most muscle? I'm sure the major strength gains occur during the powerlifting phase.
LOL Did you see pics of Dorian before he lifted? he was scrawny and ultra skinny , not naturaly muscular at all.Maybe he means his mental tenacity
Just wait until ISUCKMYMUSCLE pipes in and claims your powerlifting was high volume just as he claims Dorian was a volume trainer despite it being common knowledge that he wasn't.
yep, this year at the end of powerlifting style; i was big as a cow according to my training partner, especially on legs,back and chest thickness.
here my personnal experience, i did a simple program,every 5 to 6 day (or more if rest needded) i alternate :
training 1: deadlift one set of 5 to fail.
oly squat in 4 set of 5.
training 2 : powerlifting squat one set of 5 to fail.
oly squat 3*5 .
powerclean 3*5.
and a bench training 2 time a week.
it simple, a lot of rest, of food, and every training i can add 5 pound to a set of 5 for 3/4 month, at the end i stale, it's time to start a high volume program.
it's simple but it work.i gain more muscle during the powerlifting phase.
Maybe he means his mental tenacityLol , yes . someone post the group Skin pic of Dorian before he went "inside" where he started lifting.
Just wait until ISUCKMYMUSCLE pipes in and claims your powerlifting was high volume just as he claims Dorian was a volume trainer despite it being common knowledge that he wasn't.
That seems like a great and simple program. You can't go wrong with consistently applying the basics.
I'm sorry, but 3 sets of 6-8 reps with no more than a minute or so interval between sets, like Diesel did, does not constitute powerlifting style training. Yiu: fail for the gazillionth time.3 sets of 6-8 reps is still relatively low volume. I have never asserted one-set-to-failure as being the most effective way to build muscle. You seem to automatically equate low volume to one working set - or is this just more bullshit to try to win a debate such as including a sprinter's steps as reptitions in his weightraining program as an attempt to show that it is closer to bodybuilding than powerlifting? Desperation at its finest.
Sure, this is the reason why the most common complain of naturals who do one-set-to-failure is that their strengh increases but not their mass, huh?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Also low volume vs high? hmmm Dorian made populer the training each muscle group once per week where as true high volume guys like the Arnolds etc trained with 20 -30 sets hitting that body part 2-3 times a week.Exactly - Dorian perfected low volume training. Even if he began his training as high volume (which is questionable), the fact that he put nearly 40lbs of muscle on an already Mr. Olympia physique is yet further proof that low volume builds muscle mass.
Until Dorian came on the scene most of the Pros at that stage and Average BBs were still hitting each BP 2-3 times a week.
Who cares if Dorian did 20 sets per bodypart(he didnt BTW) it was still low volume compared to what was the norm.
Exactly - Dorian perfected low volume training. Even if he began his training as high volume (which is questionable), the fact that he put nearly 40lbs of muscle on an already Mr. Olympia physique is yet further proof that low volume builds muscle mass.thats not rppof thats hgh use,,
thats not rppof thats hgh use,,He said he was using growth throughout his entire competitive bodybuilding career... of course he was
Fact is, high volume training is good for size, strength and endurance. Every athlete trains with as high volume as he can.100 SETS OF BENCH,,DOES THE BODY GOOD
It appears there are a lot of people who follow the childish notion that more is better. Why don't you do what Homer Simpson does and curl a dumbbell all day and see what happens.
100 SETS OF BENCH,,DOES THE BODY GOOD
I myself have done around 45-60 sets of presses a week, and my max has gone from 4 reps to 8 in about 2 months. Yeah doesn't work. ::) And I feel awesome.okay, why not do 90-120 sets? Surely you would double your results....
If they can do it, they will do it, and loser whine while they win.I had a freind do it for a Mr. Olympia back in 96 he came in top 5,,that year specically we didnt expose what he did we just tested it to prove dorians theory we didnt like HIT one bit,,,at the time dorain was all the rave and weider boyz were all the best though my friend is genetically gifted he would have grown no matter what if he did 2 ests of benches,,vs 100 sets of bench,,the way did it htough we split up his workouts on in morning where we did 50 sets of bench for 225 no failtures then came later in evening to to 50 more,,
You are biased against me, and will claim anything to try to discredit me because I fucked youn up the ass in the truce thread more times than you can count. Dorian recommends three working sets for begginers in Blood&Guts. And the sprinter example is terrible in both ways because first of all they have less mass than bodybuilders who do multiple sets, and second their training has an excess of volume compared to that of powerlifters which makes their training more simillar to that of a bodybuilder.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
why not do 90-120 sets? Surely you would double your results....
Conclusion: muscular hypertrophy is only one of the mechanisms skeletal muscle have to become stronger and it is secondary in activation to several others. To achieve muscular hypertrophy, huge weights with low work load is ineffective because there is enormous room for your muscles to grow in strengh before growing in size. You'll need to use gigantic weights to achieve only a moderate degree of hypertrophy with a few contractions.
Conclusion II: To maximize hypertrophy, increase strengh enormously first via powerlifting or one-set-to-failure protocols, then stagnate the weight you're using and work on increasind the amount of work you can perform with that weight. Huge gains in the cross sectional area of muscle will follow. Once volume has increased to the point where you have observed that your gains have stagnated, work on increasing your strengh agains via powerlifting type training. Repeat ad infinitum.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I think what can add credibility to this thread is if both Royal Lion and Suckmymuscle post a current picture of themselves.
Sucky claims a 620 lb. bench.
::) ::) ::)
I think what can add credibility to this thread is if both Royal Lion and Suckmymuscle post a current picture of themselves.Lol....thanks! I am currently training for a triathlon and only hitting weights 2 times per week. I am 6'3/210 and probably just below 10% bodyfat -- definitely small by "bodybuilding" standards, but I am in shape and have decent strength for a natty.
Whoever looks the best will have the credibility.
ROLF!!! I'm just kidding... i've seen suckmymuscles picture and he looks like he never trained in his life. I don't think anybody can look worse.
+2 points to Royal lion! :D
QuoteJust wait until ISUCKMYMUSCLE pipes in and claims your powerlifting was high volume just as he claims Dorian was a volume trainer despite it being common knowledge that he wasn't.
Define volume training, idiot? Dorian did 3 sets of 6-8 reps whilst resting no more than 1 minute per set for 9 years. That's far more volume than what powerlifters do. He also used high intensity techniques like forced reps, rest-pause and negstives. Powerlifters don't do that, because their goal is not muscular hypertrophy. You = fail.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain why your sprinters example is relevant to prove that low volume with heavy weights works better for mass given that:
1. Sprinters do a lot more volume in their training than powerlifters.
2. Bodybuilders who train with multiple sets doing more than 6 reps per set have a lot more muscle than either sprinters o powerlifters.
Happy thinking! Oh wait, you haven't learned how to do that so far. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
okay, why not do 90-120 sets? Surely you would double your results....
ahahahahaha
4+ pages of 'isuck' getting his stupid ass handed to him.
keep up the good work, moron.
sucky you once again revealed your insecurity and made yourself look stupid.
Time to move on.
Peace.
I don't claim to be a beast but I am natural and train very low volume, 6 overall working sets on arms across 3 weeks. I use pre-exhaust that is VERY intense and produces A LOT of results. In my eyes, muscles DO indeed grow on low volume
there isn't a single word about it giving the test subjects increased muscle mass.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
You got your ass fucked by me in this thread and the only reason you keep responding is out of spite because you can't tolerate the fact that someone is smarter than you.
You don't even know that what you're doing is not low volume. 6 sets for arms in 3 weeks is a lot. Mike Mentzer doesen't even recommend training arms in his consolidation routine presented in Heavy Duty II. Also, pre-exhaustion technique is a high intensity technique that has nothing to do with strengh training: it is hypertrophy training. Powrrliters and other strengh athletes don't pre-exhaust muscles and then go to do a set o up to 8 reps following that; they do doubles and triples and rest for over 6 minutes per set. You guys are so stupid that you claim to train in a way that you don't do. ;DYou think 6 sets of arms over 21 days is a lot of volume. Holy shit - I guess you haven't reached the peak of your stupidity yet. Keep posting!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
hey suckmymuscle
Could you give a brief explanation of how this theory would apply in practice?
So like 5 weeks of low volume/progressive load and then what sort of weights would be used for the next phase and at what length? What sort of volume would be used to achieve hypertrophy? Frequency?
You gotta be shitting me brah, http://exercise.about.com/cs/weightlifting/a/onesettraining.htm
"The controversy
The conflicting opinions about how many sets is best stems from the Overload Principle. Research suggests that, in order to gain strength and size, you have to overload your muscle--push it beyond it's present capacity. From this theory, we know that intensity is to key to strength gains. So, can you get the kind of intensity you need from one set? Some folks think it doesn't matter if you fatigue your muscles in one set or several sets -- as long as your muscles experience a sufficient level of exhaustion."
The Physician and Sports Medicine agrees. In a comparison of several different studies, only one found that multiple sets elicited greater strength gains than single set training, while the other studies found no significant difference. Conclusion? You can get a great workout using single-set training methods, as long as you focus on quality, not quantity."
Catcha on the rebound brah.
hey suckmymuscle
Could you give a brief explanation of how this theory would apply in practice?
So like 5 weeks of low volume/progressive load and then what sort of weights would be used for the next phase and at what length? What sort of volume would be used to achieve hypertrophy? Frequency?
Fail. The article doesen't say a single word about the subjects experiencing a gain of muscle mass after the period. What the study says is that their strengh increased. Which is what I claim this kind of training does. You though you had struk gold with this, onl to have it burst on your ass. ;D ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Bottom line is that SIZE follows STRENGTHno thats wrong
Bottom line is that SIZE follows STRENGTH, so the main goal is to increase your strength, which overloads the muscle resulting in increase in size.o rly?
BOTTOM FUCKING LINE.
You think 6 sets of arms over 21 days is a lot of volume. Holy shit - I guess you haven't reached the peak of your stupidity yet. Keep posting!
no thats wrong
no thats wrongI think size does follow strength. As a muscle gets bigger it gets stronger and vice versa. Sure, different programs can be used to focus primarily on one over the other, however, as a muslce gets stronger it will get bigger too.
o rly?
you guys should just condense your points instead of spreading it out over 6 pages
state your point and let me articulate to help you bros find the solution ok? lets not get mad at eachother and name calling can we accomplish this?
Can you start training please? Also stop with the demanted youtube escapades.
cool brah, you keep benching thouse 45 lb dumbells and just increase the number of sets and reps, I'm sure you'll be huge in no time.haha you got no idea what I lift but I'm not naive to think that strength training is the optimal method to achieve hypertrophy even though I really enjoy improving and getting stronger and performing it...
If you cant make the connection that increased strength results in increase of size then god help you.
Ok cool, I'll continue to increase my poundages from week to week and stay the same size ::).increasing poundage is great. but do it between 6-12 reps. for example..one week 315 for 8. the next week 315 for 8 1/2 (spotterhelps)...next week 315 for 9... ect... once you reach 12 reps then increase your weight to a number that makes you fail at 6 and start increasing your reps again... repeat.
And you continue to do what works for you.
P.S. I've lost all hope in humanity.
You thought it said that one-set-to-failure increases mass, when in fact all it does is increase strengh.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Epic self-ownage. It takes a true brainiac to get owned by oneself, I must say. ;D ;D ;)
Still waiting for your explanation for why you used the example of the sprinter to prove that low volume works with heavy weights work for mass since bodybuilders have more mass than sprinters and sprinters do a lot of volume with their sprinters.. Oh brother, that was dumb even for you. ;)You change your arguments every time you rebut someone's argument. You have to do this because you get owned by everyone on here. You specifically stated that that 6 sets for arms over 3 weeks is NOT LOW VOLUME (these are the words you used). Yes that is low volume. High volume trainers would hit 6 sets of arms in each workout.
Anyways, 6 sets for arms is 21 days is not strengh training. I have Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty, and he doesen't even advocate training arms. His routine is nothing but deadlifts, military presses and dps. Do you really think powerlifters do barbell curls and triceps kickbacks, genius? Again, six sets for arms with reps in the 6+ range is hypertrophy training and not strengh training. You: stupido.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Are you saying that one set to failure doesnt increase size and only strength?bad example he had already acquired that size before HIT...
(http://www.cuttingedgepersonaltraining.com/Mike_Mentzer.jpg)
I never claimed sprinters have the size of bodybuilders. This was another one of your desperate twists, kind of like when you started counting every step a sprinter takes as part of their lifting program.
bad example he had already acquired that size before HIT...
The sprinters I worked out alongside in college did mostly power lifts.
Cleans (and jerk/press)
High pulls (from the floor)
Hang cleans
Step ups
Push jerks
box jumps
Split squats/pistol squats
Squats
Box squats
bench
Inverted rows
pullups/chins
a few other exercises not withstanding, this is what they did and most other athletes did the same thing. A lot of the exercises were 5 reps, but they had phases where they would train up to 10 reps for some exercises and they would throw in some 20 rep squat sets.
How do you know their quad muscles are the result of this training and not the sprinting? Powerlifters should have more massive quads than bodybuilders since they can squat a lot more, and yet bodybuilders have much bigger quad muscles than powerlifters. Riddle me that? And if sprinters do heavy weights for low volume it also proves my point, since their quads are a lot smaller than bodybuiders'. The reason, methinks, why sprinters have quite large quads is due to the high reps and high speed involved in sprinting. They would have even bigger quad muscles if they stopped sprinting and focused on moderate sets and reps with moderate weights. What is stopping their gains is the relatively high volume of sprinting, just like what impedes powerlifters from having bigger quads is too little volume.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
You change your arguments every time you rebut someone's argument. You have to do this because you get owned by everyone on here. You specifically stated that that 6 sets for arms over 3 weeks is NOT LOW VOLUME (these are the words you used). Yes that is low volume. High volume trainers would hit 6 sets of arms in each workout.
If your panties are still in a wad over my sprinter example then I am not sure what to tell you. I already explained it so a 5-year old would understand, but you still seem to be grasping.
Let me try one more time: sprinters have fast-twitch muscle fibers (remember the explosive ones); they maximize these by performing olympic lifts and also low rep squats, deadlifts, and push press. Their weight training program is typically 2 or 3 times per week which is low volume. In accordance with this type of weight training they build muscular size as well as strength and power.
I never claimed sprinters have the size of bodybuilders. This was another one of your desperate twists, kind of like when you started counting every step a sprinter takes as part of their lifting program.
cmon brother you cant be seriously giving advice about sprinters needing to back off of there training to be better. that is simply wrong
no, that was a good point he made, and it refuted your argument, basic debate tactics,he showed your argument was faulty and that dismissed it from your list of evidence...That point does not refute the fact that fast twitch fibers are maximized by low volume explosive lifting. And a byproduct of this same lifting method is increased muscle size. Comparing a sprinter to a bodybuilder has nothing to do with this.
Would they be more muscular if they stopped being sprinters and did progressive weight training with multiple sets? Sure. Would 3-4 sets of squats in the 6 to 8 rep range build bigger quads in the long haul than sprinting? Sure.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I dont think Royal Lion knows who he is debating.Thanks for the insight - I am not surprised! I am done wasting my time attempting to explain relatively simple concepts to him.
Sucky has claimed to bench 600lb+ with ease, he is a multi millionare, he was kicked out of the special forces because he was "too good", he broke a German Shepards back with his bare hands.
Royal Lion, you decide where to take it from here, LOL.
I dont think Royal Lion knows who he is debating.I believe it...
Sucky has claimed to bench 600lb+ with ease, he is a multi millionare, he was kicked out of the special forces because he was "too good", he broke a German Shepards back with his bare hands.
Royal Lion, you decide where to take it from here, LOL.
cmon brother you cant be seriously giving advice about sprinters needing to back off of there training to be better. that is simply wrongthats not what he said. he said guys who are sprinters would have bigger quads if they stopped sprinting and running all the time and just stuck to weight training.
That point does not refute the fact that fast twitch fibers are maximized by low volume explosive lifting.
And a byproduct of this same lifting method is increased muscle size.
Comparing a sprinter to a bodybuilder has nothing to do with this.
Thanks for the insight - I am not surprised! I am done wasting my time attempting to explain relatively simple concepts to him.
thats not what he said. he said guys who are sprinters would have bigger quads if they stopped sprinting and running all the time and just stuck to weight training.
How do you know their quad muscles are the result of this training and not the sprinting? Powerlifters should have more massive quads than bodybuilders since they can squat a lot more, and yet bodybuilders have much bigger quad muscles than powerlifters. Riddle me that? And if sprinters do heavy weights for low volume it also proves my point, since their quads are a lot smaller than bodybuiders'. The reason, methinks, why sprinters have quite large quads is due to the high reps and high speed involved in sprinting. They would have even bigger quad muscles if they stopped sprinting and focused on moderate sets and reps with moderate weights. What is stopping their gains is the relatively high volume of sprinting, just like what impedes powerlifters from having bigger quads is too little volume.I'm not making any assertions here. Just giving everyone insight as I have trained along all types of athletes, including sprinters. Female sprinters had better lower body development than their male counterparts IMO but the guys were built too.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Your problem is that you've been getting owned by me for 7 pages now, and you still think that you're right. It is incredible how someone as stupid as you thinks that he can debate someone intelligent. I have dismissed and destroyed all the stupid examples you brought up and have defended my theory as logically consistent. Your stupidity is only surpassed by your pride. Oh wait, that's impossible. ;DHaha - yes ISUCKMUSCLE you own everyone out there. You are that great! For 7 pages you have claimed what: that Dorian is a high volume trainer, that sprinters train more like bodybuilders than powerlifters despite the fact that they do low reps and most of the same moves; you have had to add in their running reps to their weight training reps to reach your high volume theory; you claim that 6 sets for arms over 21 days is high volume; you claim all powerlifters have less mass than bodybuilders;you claim that sprinters have larger quads than powerlifters; you assert arguments that I have not made, e.g. sprinters are as muscular as bodybuilders, low volume = one set to failure, etc., and then refute them in a sorry ass attempt to make yourself look good.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
thats not what he said. he said guys who are sprinters would have bigger quads if they stopped sprinting and running all the time and just stuck to weight training.
Haha - yes ISUCKMUSCLE you own everyone out there. You are that great! For 7 pages you have claimed what: that Dorian is a high volume trainer, that sprinters train more like bodybuilders than powerlifters despite the fact that they do low reps and most of the same moves;
you have had to add in their running reps to their weight training reps to reach your high volume theory;
you claim that 6 sets for arms over 21 days is high volume;
you claim all powerlifters have less mass than bodybuilders;
you claim that sprinters have larger quads than powerlifters;
you assert arguments that I have not made, e.g. sprinters are as muscular as bodybuilders,
low volume = one set to failure, etc.,
and then refute them in a sorry ass attempt to make yourself look good.
You are fucking pathetic. I am new on this board; apparently most on here have dealt with your stupidity before - you have made quite the reputation for yourself on here. Keep it up buddy! Keep telling yourself just how great you are....you'll feel better, really. :-*
I don't even do two sets a week its technically 4 sets every three weeks, 6 counting shoulders.Wouldn't you agree that this is low volume? ISUCKMUSCLE seems to think this is high volume.
Wouldn't you agree that this is low volume? ISUCKMUSCLE seems to think this is high volume.
Right on. Sounds like you are in tune with how your body responds and can guage accordingly.
it is by all means the lowest I could get away with to fit around my goal of strength and size gains. I'll skip training if I'm not feeling up to it so arms might not get trained till 6 weeks after sometimes. That very photo was taken after a 8 week rest from training from a stubborn lung infection.
Right on. Sounds like you are in tune with how your body responds and can guage accordingly.well I try. I just think that training is more of a stress more than anything, it should be suffered unoften and dealt with the mentality of time being the healer.
hes saying then weight training "magically" builds bigger quads than sprinting, this is a fallacy. tell me why i am wrong?
there is no physiological possibility for this to be true when both activities are done to full capacity
okay, why not do 90-120 sets? Surely you would double your results....
my point is this; the body does NOT have a limitless recovery capability. At some point you have to start letting the body compensate. ANY volume has a detrimental affect on the recovery capability.
It's being able to make strength/size gains with the least time spent actually working out that people should ideally strive for, hell even if its just for their sanity, afterall isn't it counter-productive towards other goals/tasks in your life if you literally live in the gym?
the more advanced you get the more time you have to spent training to see results...
Thats not logical.please provide some peer reviewed literature to support this
More advanced=lifting heavier weights, heavier weights=more muscle damage=more time needed for recovery=training has to be reduced (to a certain point of course).
please provide some peer reviewed literature to support this
I was thinking the other day about why powerlifters, despite their greater strengh, as well as those who do one-set-to-failure protocols, do not grow muscles like bodybuilders who do a greater volume of work. These are my conclusions: hypertrophy of muscle fibers is but one mechanism through which muscles increase in strengh. Increasing strengh with few reps cause an increase in nervous as well as metabolic muscular efficiency without, necessarily, concomitant increases in the cross-sectional area of muscle. Strengh can be increased via increased ATP expedenture by increased mitochondrial density, creatine phosphate synthesis, increased motor neural number and/or activation via increased receptor sensitivity to Calcium ions, efficiency of lactic acid clearance ratio, etc. Only when muscular and neuromuscular metabolic function is maximized does the muscle increase it's cross-sectional area to increase strengh, because increasing strengh via improved metabolic function is less straining and a more efficient use of bodily resources than building more muscular tissue. The workload imposed by powerlifting style training doesen't strain the muscle fiber's ability to increase it's contractile force beyond what it can by becoming more efficient.
The problem is that there are limits to which muscle efficiency can be maximized. Following this point, only increases in the cross sectional area of muscle will result in strengh increases. Suppose you load a bar with 200 lbs and you have enough motor neuronal efficiency, ATP reserves and mucle fibers to bench it once for 300 lbs. If you bench it once, 100% of your motor neurons will fire and all ATP will be used. Now, imagine that instead of benching it once for 300 lbs, you load the bar with 200 lbs and do 10 reps. You will use the same amount of stored ATP for those 10 reps that you'd use for benching 300 lbs for one and you'll be demanding as much from your nervous system and all muscle fibers will need to contract for you to complete your tenth rep. Now you rest for a minute, and go again. Only 50% of your fibers will have recovered from the first set, and ATP will have been depleted significantly as well as the lactic acid won't have been completely removed from sites. The demand you put on the muscles will indicate that the further strengh increases with this work load exceeds what the current muscle fibers can accomplish with it's size. Since it is impossible to increase strengh by increasing the density of actin/myosin bridges that compose muscular fibers and are responsble for their contractive ability, the only way to increase the muscle's strengh is to increase the proteinaceous volume of actin and myoson itself. Result: hypertrophy. This explains why a powerlifter has similar muscular efficiency to a bodybuilder but less muscular volume.
Conclusion: muscular hypertrophy is only one of the mechanisms skeletal muscle have to become stronger and it is secondary in activation to several others. To achieve muscular hypertrophy, huge weights with low work load is ineffective because there is enormous room for your muscles to grow in strengh before growing in size. You'll need to use gigantic weights to achieve only a moderate degree of hypertrophy with a few contractions.
Conclusion II: To maximize hypertrophy, increase strengh enormously first via powerlifting or one-set-to-failure protocols, then stagnate the weight you're using and work on increasind the amount of work you can perform with that weight. Huge gains in the cross sectional area of muscle will follow. Once volume has increased to the point where you have observed that your gains have stagnated, work on increasing your strengh agains via powerlifting type training. Repeat ad infinitum.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
You're right, the bigger/stronger a muscle becomes the more energy it takes out of the recovery capability e.g a 20 inch is a bigger stress to curl than a 12 inch arm.
Post is way too long. Bored to read. I will wait for the movie to come out.
i swear you are bunch of i dotn know what to call you anymore,,
MUSCLE IS FIBERS OF MEAT AND H20 ,,YOUR MISSION IS TO PUT AS MUCH WATER IN THE MUSCLE WHILE LEAST WATER OUTSIDE THE MUSCLE
THAT IS IT FRIENDS,,THAT IS IT ,,THATS THE WHOLE SECRET BEHIND BODYBUILDING,,
HORMONES ALWAYS WILL INCREASE WATER IN THE MUSCLE THUS THICKEN YOU AND GROW YOU ,,,BUT ALSO IN MOST INDIVIDUALS WILL INCREASE WATER BETWEEN SKIN AND MUSCLE,,THATS WHY MOST INDIVIDUALS WHEN GROW REMAIN SAME BODY FAT% TO THE EYE WHILE ACTUALLY GROWING ,,THE SUCESFUL BODYBUILDERS USE COMPOUNDS THAT AT THE FINAL END WILL DECREASSE THE WATER BETWEEN SKIN AND MUSCLE SO AND MAINTAIN WATERE IN THE MUSCLE SO NEW SIZE AND NEW LOWER BODYFAT % ACHIVED IN THE EYE OF THE SPECTATOR!
THAT IS IT THIS IS BODYBUILDING FRIENDS ,,,BODYBUILDERS CANT BE FAT UNLESS THEY DONT KNOW WHAT THEY DO OR NATURAL ,,AND THAT FAT KID TREY NEVER KNEW WHAT HE DOES THATS WHY I CALL IT GENERATION NOTHINGNESS BECAUSE THEY EAT SHIT NONE STOP IN HUGE AMOUNT OF SHIT AND FORGET THAT BODYBUILDING IS A GAME OF WATER ,,
MOST SERIOUS BODYBUILDERSD NEVER GO OVER 10% BODYFAT AND ONLY THE WATER BLOAT MAKES THEM LOOK 15%,,WATER WIL BE THE DETERMINED FACTOR IN YOUR ABUILITY TO GROW YOUR MUSCLES,,,THE ABILITY TO PLAY WITH THIS WATER WILL DETERMINE YOUR CONDITION ,,
THATS IT
THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THIS EQUATION IS TO USE HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE,,THEN ITS A WHOLE NEW BALL GAME BECAUSE THEN YOU TALKIN ABOUT MORE FIBERS NEW MEAT THATS WHY HGH AND INSULIN CREATED BEASTS SUCH AS RON COLMAN
MUSCLE CAN GROW BOTH FROM LOW REPS AND HIGH REPS DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUAL BONE AND TENDOIN STRUCTURE AND RESPOND TO TRAINING
GH15 APPROVED
haha you got no idea what I lift but I'm not naive to think that strength training is the optimal method to achieve hypertrophy even though I really enjoy improving and getting stronger and performing it...Thanks for addressing this gh15
I find it very hard to believe that the 3D "popping" bodybuilder look you see in the pros is created through strength training... shit most of the pros like Victor don't even seem to go to failure and seem half asleep... although there is not much rest and plenty of volume... but are fuccking huge...
I hope all my competitors immediatelly train with high volume. Ok, I'm just having fun with this. But some grow better with one or at most two sets an exercise. Dorian , Mentzer, Mastorakis, Cardillo all were like this. Others, like Arnold, Sergio or Cutler thrived on high volume. Others did better somewhere in the middle. There's a whole constellation of genetic and psychological factors that factor into this. Anything less is an oversimplification.
Nice theory but in reality i'm not any more exhausted now working with more muscle. It's in fact the opposite, that if you pay attention, you become more efficient in training over time due to greater knowledge and mind-muscle connection.so you think a 10 inch arm would take the same amount of time to compensate from training than a 18 inch arm?
You are so caught up on the quads of a sprinter - look at their arms, shoulders, chests, and abs. Sure, some of this muscle is attributed to sprinting and technique work, but much of it can also be attributed to their weight training and high levels of fast twitch fibers which are further developed by power and olympic lifting. You make these blanket statements like bodybuilders have more massive quads than powerlifters, etc. -- this is a total generalization. I guarantee there are powerlifters with larger quads than some bodybuilders.
Where did I ever claim sprinters have larger quads than bodybuilders? Jesus, you are desperate - see you are adding arguments that I never made and then trying to disprove them while claiming I am stupid. Clearly you are stupid. I have used sprinters as an example of athletes who maintain solid muscle mass while performing lower volume/heavier weight lifting.
Low volume encompasses more protocols than just one working set; for fucksake, training arms for 6 sets over 3 weeks is low volume by just about every standard. Are you seriously this dense? That is only 2 sets of arms per week. How is this high volume?
Just to conclude to clear up confusion. I train once a week; low volume. I train a bodypart once every three weeks; low volume. When I say arms I include shoulders, my bad. So two sets to failure on biceps, nautilus single arm biceps curl and palms up close grip pulldowns performed one after the other. Triceps, overhead French press with dumbbell or machine followed by dips and finally lateral raises straight into seated shoulder press; all in all low volume.
dorian is by no means a high volume trainer......... 2 or 3 warm ups and one work set isnt volume
coleman, preist etcetc,,, 20 to 30 sets per bodypart.. even if you counted his warm ups he's still fall eay short
how do u define low volume... walk into a gym and do one set, no warm ups, one cold set with maximum weight?????
You are so caught up on the quads of a sprinter - look at their arms, shoulders, chests, and abs.
Where did I ever claim sprinters have larger quads than bodybuilders? Jesus, you are desperate - see you are adding arguments that I never made and then trying to disprove them while claiming I am stupid. Clearly you are stupid. I have used sprinters as an example of athletes who maintain solid muscle mass while performing lower volume/heavier weight lifting.
Low volume encompasses more protocols than just one working set; for fucksake, training arms for 6 sets over 3 weeks is low volume by just about every standard. Are you seriously this dense? That is only 2 sets of arms per week. How is this high volume?
Great to see the average getbigger's level of reading comprehension revealed. Thanks sucky!
No problem. With the exception of Royal Ass, who is truly an idiot, the problem with most guys in this thread is not that they lack intelligence, but that they read at the third grade level. :)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
No problem. With the exception of Royal Ass, who is truly an idiot, the problem with most guys in this thread is not that they lack intelligence, but that they read at the third grade level. :)Look at the pattern of your thread. You have been on the defensive this entire time trying to re-assert you position against just about every other poster. The funny thing is you are so delusional and insecure that you just point the finger at all of us and start blabbering insults left and right.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
8 pages of sucky melting down like a little girl
E
Being observant and stating the obvious... is that an asset?
I don't claim to be a beast but I am natural and train very low volume, 6 overall working sets on arms across 3 weeks. I use pre-exhaust that is VERY intense and produces A LOT of results. In my eyes, muscles DO indeed grow on low volume
(https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=286297.0;attach=326533;image)
Heavy weight for high volume is by SMM was such a beast.
Pamith do you know this guy?
Pamith do you know this guy?