best rep range for....mass/strength/both

[Fatpanda]

epic cut and paste.

bullshit - i designed, funded and ran that study myself 

go back to eating burgers fatman.

[QuakerOats]

bullshit - i designed, funded and ran that study myself 

go back to eating burgers fatman.

you could always post a picture of yourself looking better than me to really own me, whaddya say?

[Fatpanda]

you could always post a picture of yourself looking better than me to really own me, whaddya say?

i look better than this fatman

 

[QuakerOats]

i look better than this fatman

 

only problem is that's not me, why don't you post your picture?

[Fatpanda]

only problem is that's not me, why don't you post your picture?

and that wasn't your trailer either 

[QuakerOats]

and that wasn't your trailer either 

this is me, now you post your picture.

[Fatpanda]

this is me, now you post your picture.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

yes i will, straight after you post a pic in clear light, in front of a clear mirror/ or have someone take a clear pic of you. Not through a partial reflection off a dirty window and grill 

please remember to have a card saying 'i am squadfather'.

[QuakerOats]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

yes i will, straight after you post a pic in clear light, in front of a clear mirror/ or have someone take a clear pic of you. Not through a partial reflection off a dirty window and grill 

please remember to have a card saying 'i am squadfather'.

hahahaha, just waht i thought, another pusssy.

[Fatpanda]

hahahaha, just waht i thought, another pusssy.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahaha just what i thought, no comment 

i'l be waiting for that pic, fatman.

[QuakerOats]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha just what i thought, no comment 

i'l be waiting for that pic, fatman.

the pics are posted above you, your turn.

[Fatpanda]

the pics are posted above you, your turn.

really, where i don;t see any pics in clear light, in front of a clear mirror/ or that someone has taken of you,  Not through a partial reflection off a dirty window and grill. 

oh and you claim these pics are not you, well why are they both the same fat fvck doing the same arm hiding the jelly roll pose 

epic denial

bye fatman.

[QuakerOats]

really, where i don;t see any pics in clear light, in front of a clear mirror/ or that someone has taken of you,  Not through a partial reflection off a dirty window and grill. 

oh and you claim these pics are not you, well why are they both the same fat fvck doing the same arm hiding the jelly roll pose 

epic denial

bye fatman.

hahahaha, ok, i'll just assume that you're too chickenshit to post your picture, no big deal, see ya.

[Necrosis]

explosive concentrics have been shown to result in the greatest recruiment of muscular fibers. that combined with low rep ranges is probably the best for hypertrophy. Sorry. along with controlled negatives before the explosive concentric. Push as fast and as hard as you can regardless of feeling.

[Fatpanda]

explosive concentrics have been shown to result in the greatest recruiment of muscular fibers. that combined with low rep ranges is probably the best for hypertrophy. Sorry. along with controlled negatives before the explosive concentric. Push as fast and as hard as you can regardless of feeling.

yes i agree.

in fact with protein synthesis rates being elevated when lifting anything above 65%, you could argue that doing max speed lifting at 65% would produce as much growth as standard speed reps at heavier weights.

[Fatpanda]

this abstract show why a workout routine that focusses on 'all' rep ranges is wrong for bodybuilding purposes:

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 38(11):1939-1944, November 2006.
BAAR, KEITH
Abstract:
The classic work of Hickson demonstrated that training for both strength and endurance at the same time results in less adaptation compared with training for either one alone: this has been described as the concurrent training effect. Generally, resistance exercise results in an increase in muscle mass, and endurance exercise results in an increase in muscle capillary density, mitochondrial protein, fatty acid-oxidation enzymes, and more metabolically efficient forms of contractile and regulatory proteins. In the 25 yr since Hickson's initial description, there have been a number of important advances in the understanding of the molecular regulation of muscle's adaptation to exercise that may enable explanation of this phenomenon at the molecular level. As will be described in depth in the following four papers, two serine/threonine protein kinases in particular play a particularly important role in this process.   Protein kinase B/Akt can both activate protein synthesis and decrease protein breakdown, thus leading to hypertrophy, and AMP-activated protein kinase can increase mitochondrial protein, glucose transport, and a number of other factors that result in an endurance phenotype. Not only are PKB and AMPK central to the generation of the resistance and endurance phenotypes, they also block each other's downstream signaling. The consequence of these interactions is a direct molecular blockade hindering the development of the concurrent training phenotype. A better understanding of the activation of these molecular pathways after exercise and how they interact will allow development of better training programs to maximize both strength and endurance.

(C)2006The American College of Sports Medicine

[mazrim]

explosive concentrics have been shown to result in the greatest recruiment of muscular fibers. that combined with low rep ranges is probably the best for hypertrophy. Sorry. along with controlled negatives before the explosive concentric. Push as fast and as hard as you can regardless of feeling.

So as fast as possible on the cocentric and 2-3 second eccentric?

[Necrosis]

this abstract show why a workout routine that focusses on 'all' rep ranges is wrong for bodybuilding purposes:

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 38(11):1939-1944, November 2006.
BAAR, KEITH
Abstract:
The classic work of Hickson demonstrated that training for both strength and endurance at the same time results in less adaptation compared with training for either one alone: this has been described as the concurrent training effect. Generally, resistance exercise results in an increase in muscle mass, and endurance exercise results in an increase in muscle capillary density, mitochondrial protein, fatty acid-oxidation enzymes, and more metabolically efficient forms of contractile and regulatory proteins. In the 25 yr since Hickson's initial description, there have been a number of important advances in the understanding of the molecular regulation of muscle's adaptation to exercise that may enable explanation of this phenomenon at the molecular level. As will be described in depth in the following four papers, two serine/threonine protein kinases in particular play a particularly important role in this process.   Protein kinase B/Akt can both activate protein synthesis and decrease protein breakdown, thus leading to hypertrophy, and AMP-activated protein kinase can increase mitochondrial protein, glucose transport, and a number of other factors that result in an endurance phenotype. Not only are PKB and AMPK central to the generation of the resistance and endurance phenotypes, they also block each other's downstream signaling. The consequence of these interactions is a direct molecular blockade hindering the development of the concurrent training phenotype. A better understanding of the activation of these molecular pathways after exercise and how they interact will allow development of better training programs to maximize both strength and endurance.

(C)2006The American College of Sports Medicine

they are differntiating resistence and endurance. In the actual paper are they training for endurance via cardio vascular training or with high rep ranges because the wording appears to indicate they are comparing weights vs endurance training.

[Ursus]

5x5 is awesome.

Most people start too heavy and dont have the patience.

70% of your 1rm for 5x5 and add 5lbs a workout will yield fantastic gains

[Fatpanda]

they are differntiating resistence and endurance. In the actual paper are they training for endurance via cardio vascular training or with high rep ranges because the wording appears to indicate they are comparing weights vs endurance training.

i have not read the full papers mentioned.

i would assume the are referring to endurance via high rep weights and not cardio - as they are comparing molecular regulation of muscle adaptation  - it would be crazy to compare say running/jogging with squats 

however even if it was cardio endurance - any rep range over 15 with weight also produces AMP-activated protein kinase and the various other factors mentioned i believe it is still a valid study to explain my reasoning.

[disco_stu]

perhaps i was mistaken in getbigs ability to debate the scientific merit in choosing a specific rep range.

can someone agree or disagree with my statement, and provide a study or personal reasons why you feel a specific rep range is best.

to all that feel using all rep ranges is best  - you are wrong if we are talking strickly for bodybuilding purposes ( based on that study i posted) - if you disagree please post studies to back up your beliefs.

both points of view can add to our colective knowledge, and hence improve us as bodybuilders and reasoned thinkers.

part of the issue is that most studies dont have a long enough timeline to show the efficacy of fixed rep pattern and range programs versus evolving routines. They also dont generally contain already well trained specimens as they need to be sure of a double blind approach in order to make any conclusion.

without any other prejudice, the 6-8 rep range is certainly where hypertrophy occurs. However specific adaptation to imposed demand means that over time, less and less recruitment of fibres results as the movements get learned and the neuropathways become more efficient. There is a great body of evidence that hyperplasia occurs, but it is controversial, yet anecdotally supported through physical testing.

For the drug free of us, the conclusion that 6-8 reps is best is very debatable. HIT ala mentzer is also of little value due to its stress on the nervous system.

That is why a method of more work at a sub maximal nervous intensity works well, cycling nervous response without blasting it to bits.

the biggest problem is a trainer's psychii. most people cant swallow the pride pill and work with weights that suit rep ranges. When they do, they will experience a staggering improvement from their first session to one 6 weeks later with a different rep pattern and range.

when they coome full circle, and end up back to a "standard" 6-8 reps, they at first will experience difficulty, but will end their cycle ahead of where they were before. it really does work, ive experienced it myself, and seen others, but that is only a small sample of course- so cant validate it without subjectivity. Laura's work seemed to support it also.

the reason why laura's wasnt popular was, in my opinion, because it meant weight trainers really needed to swallow that pride. 90%+ of weight trainers couldnt do that.

[JasonBourne22]

I don't think there is one rep range that is universal for everyone as the best mass and strength builder. For me, I train by feel, if I feel like going heavy that day, I go heavy! If I want a good burn, I lighten the weight up and bust out as many reps as possible, sometimes going up to 100 reps if I'm getting ready for a show. As long as nutrition is consistant you will either grow or get cut up no matter what as long as your in the weight room busting your ass and not overthinking it.

[Fatpanda]

i agree we need more long term studies, and on natural trainers.

however the thinking that SAID means diminishing gains at a specific rep range has never made sense to me. ( although i have experienced the phenomenon)

for instance the human has always responded to any situation with 2 responses adapt or die, it is in our history.

when we lift a load say in the 6-8 rep range, yes after a while it becomes easier and gains stop. SAID at work, however an increase in weight applies a new demand, so gains should start again ( given proper nutrition), again its on our genes to adapt or die.

When we are babies and grow, where is SAID at work there? we eat more and more and keep growing. i realise this is a very simple way of looking at things, but the human body has proven time and again it adapts - calouses on the hands from constant lifting, thicker/courser facial hair from shaving, tanning from he sun, etc we always adapt. The responce to weight lifting should be no different.

Studies show the heavier the load the greater the MPS responce. However clearly 1 rep maxes are not producing ronnie coleman sized monsters so something is faulty in this model, unless the cns stimulation produced by 1 rep max is so great that calories expended to regenerate atp and refresh the cns effects protein synthesis rates/calories required to build muscle however this is a strech indeed.

Volume clearly play a large part. Studies show that muscle mass is also directly proportional to volume, with a threshold at somepoint that giving diminishing returns.

in my opinion there is a universal model for muscle or strength gain in all people - it is lifting a heavier weight regardless of muscle type in the individual - the 6-8 reps just seems to be a sweet spot, between cns/mps stimulation.To change to a lighter/higher rep range just to change things up, does not make sense - not if studies show it provides less results.

also muscle type can change to cope with demand - so even if someone had primarily type I fibres, lifting havy weight long enough does cause their body to change the fibre type.

that study i posted shows the low rep and mod reps were close for mps - but clearly strength gains will be higher in the lower reps, so it gets the edge in my opinion.

I have decided apon 6-8 however as i am aware that many people, including myself have experienced strength gains at 1-5 reps, but not a lot of mass. again perhaps this was stimulating maximum possible mps, but people were undereating, or perhaps it was simply under the volume threshold for maximum mps - either way the slightly higher reps reduces cns burnout, increases volume and the resulting hormone responce.

regardless, there is also a limit to the length of time mps lasts - studies show 48-72 hours. So optimal frequency per muscle group points at every 2nd-3rd day.

i am rambling slightly here, but i would welcome opinions on this. The more we talk the more we learn.

what is lauras work? i have not heard of this?

i am aware if 5x5, but i have not ever seen pictures of anyone make tremendous body transformation using it. strength gains certainly.

If you believe skip la cour, jeff willet, and jrod are natural, then 5x5 does work, as it is similar in rep/set recomendations as max-ot.

agains i welcome thoughts and opinions on this rambling post 

[Ursus]

i agree we need more long term studies, and on natural trainers.

however the thinking that SAID means diminishing gains at a specific rep range has never made sense to me. ( although i have experienced the phenomenon)

for instance the human has always responded to any situation with 2 responses adapt or die, it is in our history.

when we lift a load say in the 6-8 rep range, yes after a while it becomes easier and gains stop. SAID at work, however an increase in weight applies a new demand, so gains should start again ( given proper nutrition), again its on our genes to adapt or die.

When we are babies and grow, where is SAID at work there? we eat more and more and keep growing. i realise this is a very simple way of looking at things, but the human body has proven time and again it adapts - calouses on the hands from constant lifting, thicker/courser facial hair from shaving, tanning from he sun, etc we always adapt. The responce to weight lifting should be no different.

Studies show the heavier the load the greater the MPS responce. However clearly 1 rep maxes are not producing ronnie coleman sized monsters so something is faulty in this model, unless the cns stimulation produced by 1 rep max is so great that calories expended to regenerate atp and refresh the cns effects protein synthesis rates/calories required to build muscle however this is a strech indeed.

Volume clearly play a large part. Studies show that muscle mass is also directly proportional to volume, with a threshold at somepoint that giving diminishing returns.

in my opinion there is a universal model for muscle or strength gain in all people - it is lifting a heavier weight regardless of muscle type in the individual - the 6-8 reps just seems to be a sweet spot, between cns/mps stimulation.To change to a lighter/higher rep range just to change things up, does not make sense - not if studies show it provides less results.

also muscle type can change to cope with demand - so even if someone had primarily type I fibres, lifting havy weight long enough does cause their body to change the fibre type.

that study i posted shows the low rep and mod reps were close for mps - but clearly strength gains will be higher in the lower reps, so it gets the edge in my opinion.

I have decided apon 6-8 however as i am aware that many people, including myself have experienced strength gains at 1-5 reps, but not a lot of mass. again perhaps this was stimulating maximum possible mps, but people were undereating, or perhaps it was simply under the volume threshold for maximum mps - either way the slightly higher reps reduces cns burnout, increases volume and the resulting hormone responce.

regardless, there is also a limit to the length of time mps lasts - studies show 48-72 hours. So optimal frequency per muscle group points at every 2nd-3rd day.

i am rambling slightly here, but i would welcome opinions on this. The more we talk the more we learn.

what is lauras work? i have not heard of this?

i am aware if 5x5, but i have not ever seen pictures of anyone make tremendous body transformation using it. strength gains certainly.

If you believe skip la cour, jeff willet, and jrod are natural, then 5x5 does work, as it is similar in rep/set recomendations as max-ot.

agains i welcome thoughts and opinions on this rambling post 

I buily mu cureent size using mainly 5x5 but also strength routines  made by my friend who trains me

[disco_stu]

i agree we need more long term studies, and on natural trainers.

however the thinking that SAID means diminishing gains at a specific rep range has never made sense to me. ( although i have experienced the phenomenon)

for instance the human has always responded to any situation with 2 responses adapt or die, it is in our history.

when we lift a load say in the 6-8 rep range, yes after a while it becomes easier and gains stop. SAID at work, however an increase in weight applies a new demand, so gains should start again ( given proper nutrition), again its on our genes to adapt or die.

actually this is incorrect. Thats how general adaptation occurs. What happens is that you make initial gains (adaptation to the imposed load), then muscular hypertrophy diminishes as the recruitment of neuropathways also gets trained and as a result start to cut back on the number and intensity of the signals sent to the muscle. in the end it actually becomes HARDER to make muscular gains as you're not only combatting hypertrophy, but also neurological barriers.

the key is the 2 words in SAID. "Specific" and "imposed". when its specific, you are eliminating one variable to make the most of another- in this case muscular response. the imposed bit means that you are imposing a task that is unfamiliar and requires learning.

juggling is a good example of this. see if you can juggle 3 balls. its very hard at first and you want to give up. after a few days you can do it, and after a few weeks its pretty easy. Now add another ball, or try overhand..whatever.. its really really hard again. if you stay with 3 balls for a long period of time its very difficult to get much better.

the brain recognises the task and recruits less "effort" to achieve it. That is the fight or flight response. It is adapting to achieve the task with minimal effort- making other pathways available just in case they're needed.

So, its not the increase in weight that generates the demand, its the shift in the pattern moreso. you would recognise this when you hit a plateau. Increasing the weight does nothing but make it more difficult. How many times have you seen the guy at the gym stuck at 3 sets of 10 at 220 on the bench..for years. and yet he seems to be trying the same amount every time.

as naturals its a barrier that can be the limit.

the baby example doesnt apply as its got GH and hormones on its side. facial hair doesnt apply either as thats a myth...- to do with cutting the hair at a point along its length that is thicker than the tip, tanning is dead skin and melatonin..all not appropriate examples.

the issue with said is that its not easily understood by its target audience, so it becomes branded as not working. people then make various arbitrary "adjustments" and so on.

i could write a thesis to show examples...but it does work. if you're interested it all ties up beautifully but you need to interpret what is written literally.

Tim

[tbombz]

I don't think there is one rep range that is universal for everyone as the best mass and strength builder. For me, I train by feel, if I feel like going heavy that day, I go heavy! If I want a good burn, I lighten the weight up and bust out as many reps as possible, sometimes going up to 100 reps if I'm getting ready for a show. As long as nutrition is consistant you will either grow or get cut up no matter what as long as your in the weight room busting your ass and not overthinking it.

best post on the subject. every kind of muscle contraction will stimulate hypertrophy. whats important is consistancy... going back week after week month after month year after year. and of course genetics.  work hard, work often, do what you can to maximize benefits off of your efforts (diet drugs rest supplements etc etc).