Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Howard on September 22, 2012, 10:01:50 AM
-
I have found that high rep/max pump training can be good for gains.
This may fly in the face of convetional wisdom, but I have gotten in my contest condition via high rep training and supersets, etc.
I was looking at some old pics where, for 1 yr , I did a lot more higher rep training ( minimum 10 - 15 reps per set).
I was actually bigger along with better separation and fullness.
I even did some 100 rep sets a couple times a month and that worked really well.
Toney Freeman says ( in his X man DVD) he trains higher rep pump sets and says it is the most effective way to train.
-
I have found that high rep/max pump training can be good for gains.
This may fly in the face of convetional wisdom, but I have gotten in my contest condition via high rep training and supersets, etc.
I was looking at some old pics where, for 1 yr , I did a lot more higher rep training ( minimum 10 - 15 reps per set).
I was actually bigger along with better separation and fullness.
I even did some 100 rep sets a couple times a month and that worked really well.
Toney Freeman says ( in his X man DVD) he trains higher rep pump sets and says it is the most effective way to train.
Still following a bodybuilders dvd/mag advice?
Experiment and figure out what works for you. Not everyone responds the same way.
-
Did 100 reps holding onto a 15 lbs dumbbell and I'm feeling changes in
knees quads already.
-
Volume is way more important than high resistance.
-
everybody claims something else
in the end it's all a big pile of shit
take roids and lift weights is the only way to get results everyone agrees on this tho
beautiful post; i have a tear in my eye.
-
everybody claims something else
in the end it's all a big pile of shit
take roids and lift weights is the only way to get results everyone agrees on this tho
Plato couldn't have put it more elegantly.
-
Did 100 reps holding onto a 15 lbs dumbbell and I'm feeling changes in knees quads already.
well when i had knee problems i did 3 super sets of leg extensions, 15reps and free hand squats ..about 50 reps. I had great pump, this was advice from Bob Kennedy( telephone).
-
What are we considering high reps? Ronnie usually did 12 reps per set. That is considered "high" for bodybuilding.
-
With the ammount of stuff tony Freemans running he could use the Shake Weight and make gains :)
-
A study from a few years ago concluded it's intensity of effort, as in going to failure, that makes or breaks a set for hypertrophy. Whether that was for 5, 10, 20 or even more reps made no significant difference.
That also explains why cyclists often have huge legs. I'm sure if you'd put them on pro bodybuilding cycles and continued to let them cycle all day, they'd have legs as big as IFBB pro's.
(no, pro cyclists aren't blasting 5gr or more of steroids per week)
-
With the ammount of stuff tony Freemans running he could use the Shake Weight and make gains :)
LOL, shake wt.
Ya , I know of plenty of gym rats on every drug under the sun.
But guess what none of 'em look anything close to Toney Freeman or a good IFBB pro.
If drugs made a Mr O, how come most juice monkeys don't look that great?
answer: ya gotta have the genetic talent for bodybuilding, just like any sport.
-
Still following a bodybuilders dvd/mag advice?
Experiment and figure out what works for you. Not everyone responds the same way.
I experimented with high reps , back when I competed, which was YEARS before his DVD came out.
I refer to his dvd because it was cool to see a top pro with massive size train with higher reps.
-
Toney Freeman says ( in his X man DVD) he trains higher rep pump sets and says it is the most effective way to train.
For him perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's as effective for everybody else. The same way that Bench Press might make one persons chest grow like a weed, while another person may find flys work much better. Bodybuilding is all about experimentation to find out what works best for YOU!
-
I think high rep training has its place , this week as i have my shoulder and elbow i tried it out.. on shoulder and also arm day
every excersise 100 reps, so sets of 20 under a minute rest between sets restng only or my training partner to finish his set....
and i can tell you i am sore all over... i never get sore for arms ...... they are pumped and full
so i might do this once a month....
5 excersises or shoulders =
4 exercises for bis
or tris
40 sec rest between sets if that... very challenging
-
A lot of guys starting to get into contest shape love to do high reps/high volume because they want to be in the gym longer because they like the attention of being in really good shape. Toads
-
great idea howard heavy or light training must be the key!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
(http://www.temple.edu/studentaffairs/campusrec/programs/sportclubs/images/111009_RecCal015.JPG)
-
225X10 = 300X1
-
(http://www.temple.edu/studentaffairs/campusrec/programs/sportclubs/images/111009_RecCal015.JPG)
REMEMBER HIOWARD THIS WEIGHT MIGHT NOT BE TOO HEAVY OR NOT LIGHT ENOUGH FOR MAXIMUM GAYNS BRO!!! :D :D :D :D
-
(http://www.temple.edu/studentaffairs/campusrec/programs/sportclubs/images/111009_RecCal015.JPG)
Great post Falcon
-
Muscle consists of red and white muscle fibers (some more red and less white and others vice versa) so it only makes sense in order to completely stimulate the muscle to do both types of workouts (high reps as well as low reps) to get the max out of your workout.
-
BE CAREFUL TO USE THE RIGHT WEIGHT BROS IF USING THE INCORRECT POUNDAGE CAN MAKE YOU A FAKGOT
-
I think high rep training has its place , this week as i have my shoulder and elbow i tried it out.. on shoulder and also arm day
every excersise 100 reps, so sets of 20 under a minute rest between sets restng only or my training partner to finish his set....
and i can tell you i am sore all over... i never get sore for arms ...... they are pumped and full
so i might do this once a month....
5 excersises or shoulders =
4 exercises for bis
or tris
40 sec rest between sets if that... very challenging
Good ideas here , any for legs?
-
I like to do a mix of high and low reps.
hth
-
yes tomorrow ill be doing
squats 5 sets 20 reps
leg press 5 sets 20 reps
leg extensions 5 sets 20 reps
ham string curls 5 sets 20 reps
...
rest between set as long as my training partner takes to finish his reps
did this last week or shoulders and arms, both are still sore...... after years of heavy training every single week more challenging thn lifting heavy burned like a mutha... this really worked for me
helped me hit those slow twitch muscle fires (long overdue).
definitely recommend
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/lucas78/18F637C8-E7F7-4118-8C23-1D8A84D10030-4978-00000367CBDFCCEF-1.jpg)
-
Did a high rep scheme for legs today.... It was murder
20 reps per set 5 sets per excersise under a minute rest between sets
-
mixing high and low DOESNT work.
the brain doesnt learn to do either efficiently. you need to give the brain some time on a certain rep scheme/pattern to teach it, and then invoke muscular response.
we already know this.
-
mixing high and low DOESNT work.
the brain doesnt learn to do either efficiently. you need to give the brain some time on a certain rep scheme/pattern to teach it, and then invoke muscular response.
we already know this.
lol
-
A study from a few years ago concluded it's intensity of effort, as in going to failure, that makes or breaks a set for hypertrophy. Whether that was for 5, 10, 20 or even more reps made no significant difference.
That also explains why cyclists often have huge legs. I'm sure if you'd put them on pro bodybuilding cycles and continued to let them cycle all day, they'd have legs as big as IFBB pro's.
(no, pro cyclists aren't blasting 5gr or more of steroids per week)
Agreed, it was published in 1896.
-
Did a high rep scheme for legs today.... It was murder
20 reps per set 5 sets per excersise under a minute rest between sets
20 ain't high reps for legs..and under a minute rest is useless, unless you're training for the Boston marathon.
-
20 ain't high reps for legs..and under a minute rest is useless, unless you're training for the Boston marathon.
works for my physique
;)
-
yes tomorrow ill be doing
squats 5 sets 20 reps
leg press 5 sets 20 reps
leg extensions 5 sets 20 reps
ham string curls 5 sets 20 reps
...
rest between set as long as my training partner takes to finish his reps
did this last week or shoulders and arms, both are still sore...... after years of heavy training every single week more challenging thn lifting heavy burned like a mutha... this really worked for me
helped me hit those slow twitch muscle fires (long overdue).
definitely recommend
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/lucas78/18F637C8-E7F7-4118-8C23-1D8A84D10030-4978-00000367CBDFCCEF-1.jpg)
Good stuff, thanks for posting
-
mixing high and low DOESNT work.
the brain doesnt learn to do either efficiently. you need to give the brain some time on a certain rep scheme/pattern to teach it, and then invoke muscular response.
we already know this.
You must be a beast.
-
mixing high and low DOESNT work.
the brain doesnt learn to do either efficiently. you need to give the brain some time on a certain rep scheme/pattern to teach it, and then invoke muscular response.
we already know this.
actually, Max-OT claims this to be true, as does Lyle McDonald
Max-OT says keep the rep range @ 4-6 for best possible results, and L. McDonald claims that a 5-8 rep range is IDEAL
-
Volume is way more important than high resistance.
hahahaahahahahaha no.
-
hahahaahahahahaha no.
remember man... more is better!!!
more money is better, more pretty girls is better, more sets is better
well, maybe the first 2 points would be correct ;D
-
Agreed, it was published in 1896.
::)
-
I have found that 500mg of testosterone per week works with high rep training. Also, with low rep training. And medium reps too.
Interdasting...
-
I have found that 500mg of testosterone per week works with high rep training. Also, with low rep training. And medium reps too.
Interdasting...
Science is clear on this, any kind of training WORKS. The harder you push the better the results, although with steroids the difference will probably be negligeable.
Intenceman actually has the date wrong, this was a well known fact already when the knights of the round table held their yearly posing in thong contest for King Arthur.
-
Science is clear on this, any kind of training WORKS. The harder you push the better the results, although with steroids the difference will probably be negligeable.
Intenceman actually has the date wrong, this was a well known fact already when the knights of the round table held their yearly posing in thong contest for King Arthur.
*Research conducted by Roux-Lanhge indicated the following: Only when a muscle performs with greatest power, ie, through overcoming a greater resistance than before in a unit of time, will it's functional cross section need to increase...Hypertrophy is seen only in muscles that perform a great amount of work in a unit time (Lange, Ueber Funktionelle Anpassung USW, Berlin, Julius Springer, 1917) Further research by Petow and Siebert put a finer point on the intensity issue "Hypertrophy results from an increase in intensity of work done, whereas the total amount of work is without significance" W Siebert and H. Petow, Studien uber Arbeitshypertrophie des Muskels, Z. Klin Medl, 102, 427-433, 1925) Research conducted by Arthur H Steinhaus stated: Only when intensity is increaesed does hyperrophy follow." (A Steinhaus, The Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, Vol 9 No 5 Sep -OCt 1955, 147-150).
-
*Research conducted by Roux-Lanhge indicated the following: Only when a muscle performs with greatest power, ie, through overcoming a greater resistance than before in a unit of time, will it's functional cross section need to increase...Hypertrophy is seen only in muscles that perform a great amount of work in a unit time (Lange, Ueber Funktionelle Anpassung USW, Berlin, Julius Springer, 1917) Further research by Petow and Siebert put a finer point on the intensity issue "Hypertrophy results from an increase in intensity of work done, whereas the total amount of work is without significance" W Siebert and H. Petow, Studien uber Arbeitshypertrophie des Muskels, Z. Klin Medl, 102, 427-433, 1925) Research conducted by Arthur H Steinhaus stated: Only when intensity is increaesed does hyperrophy follow." (A Steinhaus, The Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, Vol 9 No 5 Sep -OCt 1955, 147-150).
Thank you.
-
*Research conducted by Roux-Lanhge indicated the following: Only when a muscle performs with greatest power, ie, through overcoming a greater resistance than before in a unit of time, will it's functional cross section need to increase...Hypertrophy is seen only in muscles that perform a great amount of work in a unit time (Lange, Ueber Funktionelle Anpassung USW, Berlin, Julius Springer, 1917) Further research by Petow and Siebert put a finer point on the intensity issue "Hypertrophy results from an increase in intensity of work done, whereas the total amount of work is without significance" W Siebert and H. Petow, Studien uber Arbeitshypertrophie des Muskels, Z. Klin Medl, 102, 427-433, 1925) Research conducted by Arthur H Steinhaus stated: Only when intensity is increaesed does hyperrophy follow." (A Steinhaus, The Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, Vol 9 No 5 Sep -OCt 1955, 147-150).
That is exactly what I said?
-
*Research conducted by Roux-Lanhge indicated the following: Only when a muscle performs with greatest power, ie, through overcoming a greater resistance than before in a unit of time, will it's functional cross section need to increase...Hypertrophy is seen only in muscles that perform a great amount of work in a unit time (Lange, Ueber Funktionelle Anpassung USW, Berlin, Julius Springer, 1917) Further research by Petow and Siebert put a finer point on the intensity issue "Hypertrophy results from an increase in intensity of work done, whereas the total amount of work is without significance" W Siebert and H. Petow, Studien uber Arbeitshypertrophie des Muskels, Z. Klin Medl, 102, 427-433, 1925) Research conducted by Arthur H Steinhaus stated: Only when intensity is increaesed does hyperrophy follow." (A Steinhaus, The Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, Vol 9 No 5 Sep -OCt 1955, 147-150).
Citing research from 1917 and 1955 along with spelling errors?
-
*Research conducted by Roux-Lanhge indicated the following: Only when a muscle performs with greatest power, ie, through overcoming a greater resistance than before in a unit of time, will it's functional cross section need to increase...Hypertrophy is seen only in muscles that perform a great amount of work in a unit time (Lange, Ueber Funktionelle Anpassung USW, Berlin, Julius Springer, 1917) Further research by Petow and Siebert put a finer point on the intensity issue "Hypertrophy results from an increase in intensity of work done, whereas the total amount of work is without significance" W Siebert and H. Petow, Studien uber Arbeitshypertrophie des Muskels, Z. Klin Medl, 102, 427-433, 1925) Research conducted by Arthur H Steinhaus stated: Only when intensity is increaesed does hyperrophy follow." (A Steinhaus, The Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, Vol 9 No 5 Sep -OCt 1955, 147-150).
well, since bodybuilders pick things up and then put them down, they do precisely 0 work during the "unit of time" that is each set ???
-
works for my physique
;)
Than it's the best thing for you. 8)
-
What's funny is, that research clearly speaks about "work" and "resistance", this doesn't mean weight on the bar... at all. Which is what I guess intenceman is wanting to say it does?
It only means, try to train harder, not heavier. (although it can just as well still) Which will almost automatically happen throughout the years as you become more and more proficient at contracting muscles.
It's been said an experienced bodybuilder should be able to get a good biceps workout in with a can of Coca-Cola, while it may be exaggerated, the premise holds true nonetheless.
-
(http://www.temple.edu/studentaffairs/campusrec/programs/sportclubs/images/111009_RecCal015.JPG)
Poor wrists..
-
What's funny is, that research clearly speaks about "work" and "resistance", this doesn't mean weight on the bar... at all. Which is what I guess intenceman is wanting to say it does?
It only means, try to train harder, not heavier. (although it can just as well still) Which will almost automatically happen throughout the years as you become more and more proficient at contracting muscles.
It's been said an experienced bodybuilder should be able to get a good biceps workout in with a can of Coca-Cola, while it may be exaggerated, the premise holds true nonetheless.
The research is saying this:
More powerful training leads to hypertrophy. Power is expressed as load lifted in a unit of time. To do a more powerful working and stimulate hypertrophy, you must move greater loads in the same period of time.
More intense training leads to hypertrophy. Standard scientific definition (the one the researchers are talking about in this case) of intensity is percent of 1 rep max. So, more intense lifting (i.e. greater number of reps at greater 1RM thresholds) leads to hypertrophy.
You can't lift a can of coke and get big. The researchers are stating precisely that this is not possible. That time worked does not appear to be correlated to hypertrophy. Which makes sense. Otherwise, walking down the street for more hours each night would lead to massive Tom Platz-like quads.
It's about power, and intensity. Nothing else. How we cycle, and use those priniciples, with our own given genetic make-up, while avoiding injury, determines peak physical development as it pertains to training modalities. That's about it.
In short: if you aren't hypertrophying, add more intensity, or more power, or both. Or maybe you've max'd out. Of maybe you don't eat well enough. Or maybe you don't rest enough. Or maybe you need more/better drugs.
-
i cannot stress enough how badly none of this doesnt matter
it's all drugs
big weights big price to pay after the camel snaps the straw
i tend to agree maybe just go in an build to one hard set and be juiced to the gills lol if you get stuck unlike dc says up the does
-
The research is saying this:
More powerful training leads to hypertrophy. Power is expressed as load lifted in a unit of time. To do a more powerful working and stimulate hypertrophy, you must move greater loads in the same period of time.
More intense training leads to hypertrophy. Standard scientific definition (the one the researchers are talking about in this case) of intensity is percent of 1 rep max. So, more intense lifting (i.e. greater number of reps at greater 1RM thresholds) leads to hypertrophy.
You can't lift a can of coke and get big. The researchers are stating precisely that this is not possible. That time worked does not appear to be correlated to hypertrophy. Which makes sense. Otherwise, walking down the street for more hours each night would lead to massive Tom Platz-like quads.
It's about power, and intensity. Nothing else. How we cycle, and use those priniciples, with our own given genetic make-up, while avoiding injury, determines peak physical development as it pertains to training modalities. That's about it.
In short: if you aren't hypertrophying, add more intensity, or more power, or both. Or maybe you've max'd out. Of maybe you don't eat well enough. Or maybe you don't rest enough. Or maybe you need more/better drugs.
That's well put.
-
That is exactly what I said?
Is it? Then you and Mike Mentzer agree. I lifted that straight from his footnotes. (I have carte blanche).
-
Citing research from 1917 and 1955 along with spelling errors?
To back up what I said earlier about this not being new. It's a quoted footnote.
-
The research is saying this:
More powerful training leads to hypertrophy. Power is expressed as load lifted in a unit of time. To do a more powerful working and stimulate hypertrophy, you must move greater loads in the same period of time.
More intense training leads to hypertrophy. Standard scientific definition (the one the researchers are talking about in this case) of intensity is percent of 1 rep max. So, more intense lifting (i.e. greater number of reps at greater 1RM thresholds) leads to hypertrophy.
You can't lift a can of coke and get big. The researchers are stating precisely that this is not possible. That time worked does not appear to be correlated to hypertrophy. Which makes sense. Otherwise, walking down the street for more hours each night would lead to massive Tom Platz-like quads.
It's about power, and intensity. Nothing else. How we cycle, and use those priniciples, with our own given genetic make-up, while avoiding injury, determines peak physical development as it pertains to training modalities. That's about it.
In short: if you aren't hypertrophying, add more intensity, or more power, or both. Or maybe you've max'd out. Of maybe you don't eat well enough. Or maybe you don't rest enough. Or maybe you need more/better drugs.
correcto-mundo
-
The research is saying this:
More powerful training leads to hypertrophy. Power is expressed as load lifted in a unit of time. To do a more powerful working and stimulate hypertrophy, you must move greater loads in the same period of time.
More intense training leads to hypertrophy. Standard scientific definition (the one the researchers are talking about in this case) of intensity is percent of 1 rep max. So, more intense lifting (i.e. greater number of reps at greater 1RM thresholds) leads to hypertrophy.
You can't lift a can of coke and get big. The researchers are stating precisely that this is not possible. That time worked does not appear to be correlated to hypertrophy. Which makes sense. Otherwise, walking down the street for more hours each night would lead to massive Tom Platz-like quads.
It's about power, and intensity. Nothing else. How we cycle, and use those priniciples, with our own given genetic make-up, while avoiding injury, determines peak physical development as it pertains to training modalities. That's about it.
In short: if you aren't hypertrophying, add more intensity, or more power, or both. Or maybe you've max'd out. Of maybe you don't eat well enough. Or maybe you don't rest enough. Or maybe you need more/better drugs.
Intensity means effort, not weight as in a percentage of 1rep max unless you're speaking in terms of pure strength training. Of course heavier can be more intense, but not always. And one doesn't need to train 'heavy' as in low reps to develop muscle.
If people are really interested in research regarding hypertrophy and fiber recruitment, I recommend to search and read work done by Carpinelli, Jungblut or Burd on the size principle, especially Carpinelli.
-
another high rep arm day today...
looking foward to it
-
Intensity means effort, not weight as in a percentage of 1rep max unless you're speaking in terms of pure strength training. Of course heavier can be more intense, but not always. And one doesn't need to train 'heavy' as in low reps to develop muscle.
If people are really interested in research regarding hypertrophy and fiber recruitment, I recommend to search and read work done by Carpinelli, Jungblut or Burd on the size principle, especially Carpinelli.
Sorry, but the research community doesn't agree with your definition of intensity. Intensity is defined as % of 1RM lifted. Still is today. I'm not sure where you've got your definitions from. Happy to learn more though, so I'm challenging in a friendly way here. No slam.
Your definition is more qualitative and nebulous. Let's test your definition of "effort". How would you quantify "effort" in a laboratory? If you can't quantify effort, then how can you quantify "intensity"? Yet, we all agree intensity correlates to hypertrophy.
Heavier weights will always be more "intense", by the standard definition of intensity. So I don't agree with you there, and haven't seen the community change its stance on that either.
Could you be confusing perceived effort with intensity? The former is more difficult to measure quantitatively, hence, why it's rarely cared about in research. After all, one man's pill is another's poison. One man's perceived effort can only be measured with qualitative questionnaires, which are notoriously ambiguous in providing any type of precision.
Yet, I will agree with you that more intense loading with each subsequent workout (as defined by 1RM) is not necessary to produce hypertrophy. I alluded to that in my above post. One could increase powerful lifting during a session, and increase hypertrophy. To employ more powerful lifting, all one needs to do is lift the same amount of weight, but do it in a shorter period of time. Or lift even lighter weight still, but do it so quickly that the power output of the workout (measured in joules/second) is greater than what the lifter did with a heavier load in a longer period of time. Louis Simmons employs this principle with his Westside barbell training modalities. As do most Olympic Lifters. So it's quite common and accepted. No one would argue that more powerful lifting doesn't increase hypertrophy, even if intensity is decreased.
-
Sorry, but the research community doesn't agree with your definition of intensity. Intensity is defined as % of 1RM lifted. Still is today. I'm not sure where you've got your definitions from. Happy to learn more though, so I'm challenging in a friendly way here. No slam.
Your definition is more qualitative and nebulous. Let's test your definition of "effort". How would you quantify "effort" in a laboratory? If you can't quantify effort, then how can you quantify "intensity"? Yet, we all agree intensity correlates to hypertrophy.
Heavier weights will always be more "intense", by the standard definition of intensity. So I don't agree with you there, and haven't seen the community change its stance on that either.
Could you be confusing perceived effort with intensity? The former is more difficult to measure quantitatively, hence, why it's rarely cared about in research. After all, one man's pill is another's poison. One man's perceived effort can only be measured with qualitative questionnaires, which are notoriously ambiguous in providing any type of precision.
Yet, I will agree with you that more intense loading with each subsequent workout (as defined by 1RM) is not necessary to produce hypertrophy. I alluded to that in my above post. One could increase powerful lifting during a session, and increase hypertrophy. To employ more powerful lifting, all one needs to do is lift the same amount of weight, but do it in a shorter period of time. Or lift even lighter weight still, but do it so quickly that the power output of the workout (measured in joules/second) is greater than what the lifter did with a heavier load in a longer period of time. Louis Simmons employs this principle with his Westside barbell training modalities. As do most Olympic Lifters. So it's quite common and accepted. No one would argue that more powerful lifting doesn't increase hypertrophy, even if intensity is decreased.
It is very difficult to measure perceived effort I agree, but not fiber recruitment also known as motor unit activation for the 'science' guys. I'll post a quote from this guy Carpinelli on how this is done:
"Motor unit activation level (AL) can be measured by comparing voluntary and induced response. “During an MVC [maximal voluntary contraction], a supramaximal [greater than maximum] electrical stimulus is superimposed with surface electrodes onto a muscle or its nerve,” Carpinelli explains. “When the superimposed twitch technique is applied properly, the electrical stimulus fully activates all the motor units in the pool. If all the motor units have been recruited [voluntarily] and are firing at optimal frequencies, no additional force will be detected [as a result of the electrical stimulus].”
Motor unit activation studies, writes Carpinelli, “strongly support” the size principle. “It is the intensity of effort that determines the AL of motor units and the resultant force output. A greater effort produces greater motor unit activation. Maximal effort produces maximal, or near maximal, activation of motor units. The resultant force, which is the dependent variable—not the independent variable—is a maximal force produced in a specific individual for a specific exercise. It is entirely dependent on the intensity of effort. However, it is important to recognize that none of the [AL] studies speculate on a minimal recruitment threshold for strength gains…A maximal effort only insures maximal voluntary motor unit activation.”
IMO, the bottom line is progressive overload, always striving to lift a little heavier or more reps over time. Training with close to max efforts may be more effective at inducing hypertrophy due to the increased fiber recruitment or motor unit activation.
My point with all of this is that 'heavy' as in low reps is not needed and that high reps work just as well, because it is progressive overload and degrees of effort that matter.
-
The research is saying this:
More powerful training leads to hypertrophy. Power is expressed as load lifted in a unit of time. To do a more powerful working and stimulate hypertrophy, you must move greater loads in the same period of time.
More intense training leads to hypertrophy. Standard scientific definition (the one the researchers are talking about in this case) of intensity is percent of 1 rep max. So, more intense lifting (i.e. greater number of reps at greater 1RM thresholds) leads to hypertrophy.
You can't lift a can of coke and get big. The researchers are stating precisely that this is not possible. That time worked does not appear to be correlated to hypertrophy. Which makes sense. Otherwise, walking down the street for more hours each night would lead to massive Tom Platz-like quads.
It's about power, and intensity. Nothing else. How we cycle, and use those priniciples, with our own given genetic make-up, while avoiding injury, determines peak physical development as it pertains to training modalities. That's about it.
In short: if you aren't hypertrophying, add more intensity, or more power, or both. Or maybe you've max'd out. Of maybe you don't eat well enough. Or maybe you don't rest enough. Or maybe you need more/better drugs.
The research I was talking about clearly distinguished between intensity (which is an intrinsic process) and load on the bar (which is extrinsic). It's all about how hard you work, NOT about how much load is on the bar since that has no 1 on 1 transference on what is actually going on inside your body.
My remark about the can of coca cola holds true, if one were to be able to generate enough intensity with that can of coke, it would elicit hypertrophy.
-
Intensity means effort, not weight as in a percentage of 1rep max unless you're speaking in terms of pure strength training. Of course heavier can be more intense, but not always. And one doesn't need to train 'heavy' as in low reps to develop muscle.
If people are really interested in research regarding hypertrophy and fiber recruitment, I recommend to search and read work done by Carpinelli, Jungblut or Burd on the size principle, especially Carpinelli.
Carpinelli. That's the name I was looking for.
-
It is very difficult to measure perceived effort I agree, but not fiber recruitment also known as motor unit activation for the 'science' guys. I'll post a quote from this guy Carpinelli on how this is done:
"Motor unit activation level (AL) can be measured by comparing voluntary and induced response. “During an MVC [maximal voluntary contraction], a supramaximal [greater than maximum] electrical stimulus is superimposed with surface electrodes onto a muscle or its nerve,” Carpinelli explains. “When the superimposed twitch technique is applied properly, the electrical stimulus fully activates all the motor units in the pool. If all the motor units have been recruited [voluntarily] and are firing at optimal frequencies, no additional force will be detected [as a result of the electrical stimulus].”
Motor unit activation studies, writes Carpinelli, “strongly support” the size principle. “It is the intensity of effort that determines the AL of motor units and the resultant force output. A greater effort produces greater motor unit activation. Maximal effort produces maximal, or near maximal, activation of motor units. The resultant force, which is the dependent variable—not the independent variable—is a maximal force produced in a specific individual for a specific exercise. It is entirely dependent on the intensity of effort. However, it is important to recognize that none of the [AL] studies speculate on a minimal recruitment threshold for strength gains…A maximal effort only insures maximal voluntary motor unit activation.”
IMO, the bottom line is progressive overload, always striving to lift a little heavier or more reps over time. Training with close to max efforts may be more effective at inducing hypertrophy due to the increased fiber recruitment or motor unit activation.
My point with all of this is that 'heavy' as in low reps is not needed and that high reps work just as well, because it is progressive overload and degrees of effort that matter.
I've read Carpinelli's stuff. I like the way he lays out his toughts.
But nothing he says disagrees with what I said. In fact, what I said is pretty much a simple derivation of what he's said.
Carpinelli is telling us that at a maximal voluntary contraction, which requires the highest intensity level (which he defines at %1RM in his papers), the entire pool of motor units is recruited, and hence, the fibers ascribed to those motor units contract. All of them. In accordance with the size principle, of course. Therefore, past the level intensity that triggers a maximal voluntary contraction of the entire motor unit pool in a muscle, you can't recruit more muscle fibers. You've already recruited all the ones you can ever recruit. And the force output you get out of maximal recruitment is a defined factor (i.e. the dependent variable). You apply more intensity, you get more recruitment, you get more force out of the muscle via contracting more fibers.
I don't want to assume I know what you're trying to tell me, but I think I have an idea. We're probably saying the same things, just that we disagree on the terminology. Plus, it's Friday end of month, and I've done my mandatory 5 posts on training science for the month per my contract with Ron, so I'm going to back out now. I talk a big game on the science of training because it's my educational background.
In reality, 95% of your results come from picking up something heavy and lifting it a lot. The other 5% comes from knowledge of training programs and how to cycle them. If you're an elite athlete, it matters. If you just want to get bigger and stronger for whatever reason, it doesn't matter that much. Until you get older and want to prevent injuries. Then it matters a bit more. But not too much.
I like to talk about training modalities, only because I have shit genetics, and I studies it a ton in school hoping that knowledge would help me overcome shitty genetics. It does not. I've told a million stories about guys who eat/train like shit who look way better than I ever could, all while I was studying under Tudor Bompa.
-
I've read Carpinelli's stuff. I like the way he lays out his toughts.
But nothing he says disagrees with what I said. In fact, what I said is pretty much a simple derivation of what he's said.
Carpinelli is telling us that at a maximal voluntary contraction, which requires the highest intensity level (which he defines at %1RM in his papers), the entire pool of motor units is recruited, and hence, the fibers ascribed to those motor units contract. All of them. In accordance with the size principle, of course. Therefore, past the level intensity that triggers a maximal voluntary contraction of the entire motor unit pool in a muscle, you can't recruit more muscle fibers. You've already recruited all the ones you can ever recruit. And the force output you get out of maximal recruitment is a defined factor (i.e. the dependent variable). You apply more intensity, you get more recruitment, you get more force out of the muscle via contracting more fibers.
I don't want to assume I know what you're trying to tell me, but I think I have an idea. We're probably saying the same things, just that we disagree on the terminology. Plus, it's Friday end of month, and I've done my mandatory 5 posts on training science for the month per my contract with Ron, so I'm going to back out now. I talk a big game on the science of training because it's my educational background.
In reality, 95% of your results come from picking up something heavy and lifting it a lot. The other 5% comes from knowledge of training programs and how to cycle them. If you're an elite athlete, it matters. If you just want to get bigger and stronger for whatever reason, it doesn't matter that much. Until you get older and want to prevent injuries. Then it matters a bit more. But not too much.
I like to talk about training modalities, only because I have shit genetics, and I studies it a ton in school hoping that knowledge would help me overcome shitty genetics. It does not. I've told a million stories about guys who eat/train like shit who look way better than I ever could, all while I was studying under Tudor Bompa.
I agree completely with the bold part. I just wanted to show that high reps work just as good as low reps when it comes to muscle growth, which is what the OP was asking I think.
-
http://www.lift-run-bang.com/2012/09/reps-strength-training-pixie-dust.html
http://www.lift-run-bang.com/2012/09/addendum-to-yesterdays-post-about-high.html
http://www.lift-run-bang.com/2012/09/more-on-poundstone-curls-origin-of-my.html