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

[Master Blaster]

wow, what an insightful answer. i wish i had spoken to you years ago 

talk about owning yourself.

here's a hint why you shouldn't do that - read that study.

it shows that reps around 5, stimulate more muscle growth and greater stength than just going for the burn.

People who site study after study tend to be small...why is that?

[Krankenstein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explain what you mean please.....as in, give an example of a workout or how you would progress over 6-weeks

[muscularny]

if you complicate bodybuilding you will never get anywhere youll just get injured

keep it simple its a simple sport

[disco_stu]

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

actually once you get your head around it it isnt that difficult. The point is that the original poster wants to maximise the effort- i.e. not wait for eventual gains through attrition.

once you can sort the theory, then you can apply a pretty basic approach. Most elite athletes let the coaches do this work.

[disco_stu]

if you complicate bodybuilding you will never get anywhere youll just get injured

keep it simple its a simple sport

unfortunately the human body and how it reacts is complicated. This is why something basic is not optimal and why most drug free-ers become stuck- or need to resort to ultra strict lifestyles. itd be nice to be able to apply something really simple and have the body respond. It is much like how drugs work in the body. Initial response to something new, then quick adaptation over a number of mechanisms to arrive at a point where- if you continued to take that drug, its effect is barely felt, AND if you remove it, the body freaks out.

what this technique is trying to accomplish is to minimise the brain's impact in the scheme and place the stress on the muscular system.

the published work laura did used quite high rep schemes for a purpose- they yield the best work per unit time.

over 6 weeks the rep pattern wouldnt change at all.

over a year it may change subtly every 6 weeks. over 2 years it may come full circle. when you arrive back at the rep pattern you started at you may start slightly below where you finished, but 6 weeks later you will be significantly ahead.

the psychological benefits are under-rated also. When you know your "best lift", you approach it as a form of limit. If you dont, or its difficuult to know exactly what you should be lifting, you tend to lift without any expectation.

additional stressors in laura's work included the effect of reversing direction mid rep. This is well known to be a huge stressor on a muscle. All these little intensifiers- as well as mid set static holds and so on are included and placed in there for the reasons we've been discussing.

an example of one 6 week routine to the next might be a routine based on a 5x5x5x5 full, half up, half down, full rep scheme, then move to a 4x5x6x7 full, half up, half down, full scheme for instance.

the next 6 weeks might introduce static holds, to the 5x5x5x5, the next to the 4x5x6x7.

the rest periods are very short..another key.

[Get Rowdy]

Good thread.  Good contributers.

[Fatpanda]

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

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

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

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

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

as naturals its a barrier that can be the limit.

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

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

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

Tim

its ok tim, i completely understand how said works. i just always had a problem with it from a human ability to adapt point of view. i simply do not like the thought that our bodies try to stop us adapting.

like i said a have experienced the dreaded plateu and used periodisation to overcome it, sp i am aware how to get around it to some extent.

like you and goudy said sometimes you have to swallow the pill and work with lower weights to see you flourish.

i always liked the milo and the bull example - where if the weight increase is small enough and you get adequate calories everyday, there should be no reason you cannot keep getting stronger/bigger.

if only it worked like that in the real world  

[wavelength]

I can chime in with my personal experience. What works best for me is 6-10 reps for mass. I also tried 3x20 reps and 3x15 reps and it didn't do much for strength or mass. What works great for breaking strength plateaus is HST.

[Fatpanda]

People who site study after study tend to be small...why is that?

i am not small - i assure you.

that does not mean i am happy with whasize i do have however.

if you stop trying to learn new things and improve yourself - then take a look in the mirror, chances are that that is the best you will ever be.

I can chime in with my personal experience. What works best for me is 6-10 reps for mass. I also tried 3x20 reps and 3x15 reps and it didn't do much for strength or mass. What works great for breaking strength plateaus is HST.

i tried hst for a long while. it gave me good mass gains, but zero strengh gains. it burnt me out, and i constantly had colds/flu etc while doing it. in fact i was so drained from hst that i stopped working out competely for 6 months.

disco-stu and wavelength - do you/did you post on the hst board?

[wavelength]

i tried hst for a long while. it gave me good mass gains, but zero strengh gains. it burnt me out, and i constantly had colds/flu etc while doing it. in fact i was so drained from hst that i stopped working out competely for 6 months.

Not my experience. However, I adapted it somewhat:

- I did 12/8/4/1/rest/light, 2 weeks each. I never did 15 reps, since I already knew it didn't work for me.
- I only did HST for the big basic movements. All other exercises I continued as usual (split training, 6-10 reps).
- 1 rep I only did on bench and squat.

disco-stu and wavelength - do you/did you post on the hst board?

Nopes.

[disco_stu]

FP.

unfortunately you've missed the point completely.

you just do your thing mate. good luck.

it is clear that you do not understand SAID.

you think you do, but you are amongst many who also think they get it. i tried to explain it.

i suggest you re-read the posts and interpret them literally..i.e. exactly as written, without any personal spin.

it takes alot of effort to explain this at first, so when, after all that, someone summarises it incorrectly and displays that they havent grasped the fundamentals it is very frustrating.

your comments about plateauing and hst etc show that nothing written throughout this thread has sunk in.

[Eric2]

can you read you fvcking clown - thats is NOT what that study says. fvck off   

meltdown

I can read but not your short novel, it looks from a short glance to be filled with %'s and bullshit.


   GO POUND SAND, DICKBEAT

[Fatpanda]

FP.

unfortunately you've missed the point completely.

you just do your thing mate. good luck.

it is clear that you do not understand SAID.

you think you do, but you are amongst many who also think they get it. i tried to explain it.

i suggest you re-read the posts and interpret them literally..i.e. exactly as written, without any personal spin.

it takes alot of effort to explain this at first, so when, after all that, someone summarises it incorrectly and displays that they havent grasped the fundamentals it is very frustrating.

your comments about plateauing and hst etc show that nothing written throughout this thread has sunk in.

Tim, i think i have not made my posts very clear, i was not talking about SAID when i was talking about the human ability to adapt. i was talking about the ability to adapt in general. Like i said i understand SAID completely, and yes i too could write essays on it, but that would get us nowhere. you are clearly annoyed that you feel i have not read or understood your posts. I have.

your comments on explaining what literally mean - are childish at best.

your comments that my plateauing and experience with hst show i do not understand SAID are beyond silly.

Or are you claiming you have never plateaued? and have managed to use your Omnipotent knowledge and intricate understanding of SAID to avoid that which has plagued Olympic strength athletes and powerlifters for centuries.

you need to calm down, and stop confusing a persons knowledge with their ability to express themself through the written word - i have been rushing through these posts.

i appreciate your participation in this thread, and your thourough explanations.

i would also like to continue it, although without the snide comments. I would not like this to turn into a war of words, when it could turn into much much more.

i assure you for all future posts i will take due care, and concentration in writing exactly what i mean.

[disco_stu]

my apologies FP. i was a bit harsh.

my bad.

fwiw im not saying this is the solution to all things weight training, nor a foolproof way to avoid plateauing.

what it is is a way to combat the issues encountered by everyday weight trainers and athletes as it addresses all the aspects that contribute to sticking points, continual progress and psychological issues.

[IAMTHEGAME]

epic cut and paste.

Don't worry Dave you will be able to cut and paste too after Maggie is done cutting coupons with the scissors...

[Ursus]

If i get a bit of time ill read this properly...getting very dense v quick and dont wanna change subject of misinterpret it when i havent read it

[Necrosis]

 Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60. Epub 2002 Aug 15. Links
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5. years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".

after actually reading the full study, something the OP should of done, it is clear that a mix of high and low reps would be the best for muscle gains. The high rep group could perform more reps, had better aerobic power and greater lactic acid buildup or time to exhaustion. All of these are beneficial to hypertrophy although not the main factors. True the low/int group had more hypertrophy but high reps combined with the low reps for improved aerobic and lactic acid threshold and muscular endurance. This along with heavy weight would in theory lead to increased endurance with heavyweight, which in theory could not be found in the low rep individuals. Both muscular strength and endurance contribute to hypertrophy.

[Necrosis]

The control of skeletal muscle mass is also markedly mediated by the regulation of transduction pathways that promote the synthesis and/or the degradation of proteins. Insulin-like growth factor-I plays a key role in this balance by activating the Akt/tuberous sclerosis complex 2/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. Stimulation of this pathway leads to the concomitant activation of initiation and elongation factors resulting in the elevation of protein translation and the downregulation of ubiquitin proteasome components through Forkhead-box O transcription factors.

=

high reps for the WIN

[Fatpanda]

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60. Epub 2002 Aug 15. Links
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5. years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".

after actually reading the full study, something the OP should of done, it is clear that a mix of high and low reps would be the best for muscle gains. The high rep group could perform more reps, had better aerobic power and greater lactic acid buildup or time to exhaustion. All of these are beneficial to hypertrophy although not the main factors. True the low/int group had more hypertrophy but high reps combined with the low reps for improved aerobic and lactic acid threshold and muscular endurance. This along with heavy weight would in theory lead to increased endurance with heavyweight, which in theory could not be found in the low rep individuals. Both muscular strength and endurance contribute to hypertrophy.

perhaps you could post the full text or email a copy to me since you have it - or are you talking about the other study i posted as the one you put above clearly does not back you claims, in terms of hypertrophy gains.

in fact neither papers i posted back your claims in any way.

also if you had the full paper why where you asking me if the endurance part was through reps or cardio 

perhaps in reading all FOUR PAPERS you missed this part :

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 38(11):1939-1944, November 2006.
BAAR, KEITH
Abstract:
Protein kinase B/Akt can both activate protein synthesis and decrease protein breakdown, thus leading to hypertrophy, and AMP-activated protein kinase can increase mitochondrial protein, glucose transport, and a number of other factors that result in an endurance phenotype. Not only are PKB and AMPK central to the generation of the resistance and endurance phenotypes, they also block each other's downstream signaling. The consequence of these interactions is a direct molecular blockade hindering the development of the concurrent training phenotype.

Which clearly argues against your claim that high reps win or a mixture for hypertrophy.

however i agree that to neglect all high rep/cardio endurance training would be foolish, from a health/maximum all round performance aspect.

necrosis - are you usmokepole by any chance?

is this you stalking me just as i predicted you would? arguing with everything i post  i really owned you bad in that other thread didn't i 

[Necrosis]

perhaps you could post the full text or email a copy to me since you have it - or are you talking about the other study i posted as the one you put above clearly does not back you claims, in terms of hypertrophy gains.

in fact neither papers i posted back your claims in any way.

also if you had the full paper why where you asking me if the endurance part was through reps or cardio 

perhaps in reading all FOUR PAPERS you missed this part :

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 38(11):1939-1944, November 2006.
BAAR, KEITH
Abstract:
Protein kinase B/Akt can both activate protein synthesis and decrease protein breakdown, thus leading to hypertrophy, and AMP-activated protein kinase can increase mitochondrial protein, glucose transport, and a number of other factors that result in an endurance phenotype. Not only are PKB and AMPK central to the generation of the resistance and endurance phenotypes, they also block each other's downstream signaling. The consequence of these interactions is a direct molecular blockade hindering the development of the concurrent training phenotype.

Which clearly argues against your claim that high reps win or a mixture for hypertrophy.

however i agree that to neglect all high rep/cardio endurance training would be foolish, from a health/maximum all round performance aspect.

necrosis - are you usmokepole by any chance?

is this you stalking me just as i predicted you would? arguing with everything i post  i really owned you bad in that other thread didn't i 

im sorry i just wanted to see you meltdown again

longer response then i anticipated, ultra melt.

[Fatpanda]

im sorry i just wanted to see you meltdown again

longer response then i anticipated, ultra melt.

hahahahaha i knew it - let the stalking begin. you have owned yourself once again.

[Necrosis]

hahahahaha i knew it - let the stalking begin. you have owned yourself once again.

i already posted in this thread.


Honestly i dont have the hatred you seem to have for me, its all good bro.

the stuff where i said high reps for the win has no bearing on high reps at all, its gibberish, i just wanted to show you how stupid you where. Sorry, its all good bro . The fact that you argued against it shows you dont even know what i referring to. I agree with you btw, im just being an ass, lower ranges are better for hypertrophy but i think high reps should be used as well for endurance adaptations which could be beneficial.

of course im usmokepole, im still the mod of the nut board.

If you could own me in anything intellectual at all it would be a sad day, a sad day.

[Fatpanda]

i already posted in this thread.


Honestly i dont have the hatred you seem to have for me, its all good bro.

the stuff where i said high reps for the win has no bearing on high reps at all, its gibberish, i just wanted to show you how stupid you where. Sorry, its all good bro . The fact that you argued against it shows you dont even know what i referring to. I agree with you btw, im just being an ass, lower ranges are better for hypertrophy but i think high reps should be used as well for endurance adaptations which could be beneficial.

of course im usmokepole, im still the mod of the nut board.

If you could own me in anything intellectual at all it would be a sad day, a sad day.

hahahahaha - can you point out where in my post i even mentioned that post never mind argued or debated that gibberish hahahaha you are exposing your desperation once again.

i see you are once again trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat with deflection, and avoidance - it must really get to you how i constantly own you.

i showed abstracts that back up my thought and beliefs, while you try your best to argue with no basis, rather than debate or add to a potentially decent thought provoking thread.

then you finally admit i am right - you must be crying into your keyboard again.

at least you admit you are an ass. - brutal truth.

now run along before i own you a 3rd time.

[Fatpanda]

another interesting study regarding rest between sets

Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men.
•   Ahtiainen JP,
•   Pakarinen A,
•   Alen M,
•   Kraemer WJ,
•   Hakkinen K.
Department of Biology of Physical Activity & Neuromuscular Research Center, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland. ahtiainen@sport.jyu.fi
Acute and long-term hormonal and neuromuscular adaptations to hypertrophic strength training were studied in 13 recreationally strength-trained men. The experimental design comprised a 6-month hypertrophic strength-training period including 2 separate 3-month training periods with the crossover design, a training protocol of short rest (SR, 2 minutes) as compared with long rest (LR, 5 minutes) between the sets. Basal hormonal concentrations of serum total testosterone (T), free testosterone (FT), and cortisol (C), maximal isometric strength of the leg extensors, right leg 1 repetition maximum (1RM), dietary analysis, and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) of the quadriceps femoris by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were measured at months 0, 3, and 6. The 2 hypertrophic training protocols used in training for the leg extensors (leg presses and squats with 10RM sets) were also examined in the laboratory conditions at months 0, 3, and 6. The exercise protocols were similar with regard to the total volume of work (loads x sets x reps), but differed with regard to the intensity and the length of rest between the sets (higher intensity and longer rest of 5 minutes vs. somewhat lower intensity but shorter rest of 2 minutes). Before and immediately after the protocols, maximal isometric force and electromyographic (EMG) activity of the leg extensors were measured and blood samples were drawn for determination of serum T, FT, C, and growth hormone (GH) concentrations and blood lactate. Both protocols before the experimental training period (month 0) led to large acute increases (p < 0.05-0.001) in serum T, FT, C , and GH concentrations, as well as to large acute decreases (p < 0.05-0.001) in maximal isometric force and EMG activity. However, no significant differences were observed between the protocols. Significant increases of 7% in maximal isometric force, 16% in the right leg 1RM, and 4% in the muscle CSA of the quadriceps femoris were observed during the 6-month strength-training period. However, both 3-month training periods performed with either the longer or the shorter rest periods between the sets resulted in similar gains in muscle mass and strength. No statistically significant changes were observed in basal hormone concentrations or in the profiles of acute hormonal responses during the entire 6-month experimental training period. The present study indicated that, within typical hypertrophic strength-training protocols used in the present study, the length of the recovery times between the sets (2 vs. 5 minutes) did not have an influence on the magnitude of acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses or long-term training adaptations in muscle strength and mass in previously strength-trained men.
PMID: 16095405 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Necrosis]

hahahahaha - can you point out where in my post i even mentioned that post never mind argued or debated that gibberish hahahaha you are exposing your desperation once again.

i see you are once again trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat with deflection, and avoidance - it must really get to you how i constantly own you.

i showed abstracts that back up my thought and beliefs, while you try your best to argue with no basis, rather than debate or add to a potentially decent thought provoking thread.

then you finally admit i am right - you must be crying into your keyboard again.

at least you admit you are an ass. - brutal truth.

now run along before i own you a 3rd time.

now your using science to back up your claims bwwhahahahahahahh

"Which clearly argues against your claim that high reps win or a mixture for hypertrophy."

the only place where i said high reps for the win



"The control of skeletal muscle mass is also markedly mediated by the regulation of transduction pathways that promote the synthesis and/or the degradation of proteins. Insulin-like growth factor-I plays a key role in this balance by activating the Akt/tuberous sclerosis complex 2/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. Stimulation of this pathway leads to the concomitant activation of initiation and elongation factors resulting in the elevation of protein translation and the downregulation of ubiquitin proteasome components through Forkhead-box O transcription factors.

=

high reps for the WIN"


BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAHA

i dont even have to try with you.....

no distraction i posted the quotes you read them, you know nothing about weight training, stop the non sense. Go back to the comic books, i wont respond anymore as i have alot of work to be at but i will tell  you this, you are an entertaining fellow. Have a good one