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

[Fatpanda]

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

you are beyond delusional.

At no point did i mention your bullshit abstract, you argued that i should have read the full paper of the study i posted like like you did (which was more lies from you), and that a mixture of high and low reps is best according to the full study. i pointed out you were full of shit, and there were 4 papers, not 1.

i even highlighted the part that shows a mixture of high and low reps are bad for hypertrophy, and highlighthed that your beliefs and claims of a mixture of reps and 'high reps for the win' were wrong - at no point did i entertain your shit abstract.

you have beed exposed as a liar and a fraud. I have owned you more times that you can count, and your hatred of me has gotten so overwhelming for you that you have snapped and have even admitted you are now making things up to try to catch me out.

you are now once again trying to ignore and deflect what has really went on in this thread, just like you did in the supplement thread. in the vain hope noone has noticed what a sad and pathetic loser you are.

you have admitted you agree with me, you have admitted you made stuff up to catch me out, you have admitted you are an ass - you have owned yourself.

hahahahaha you couldn't make this stuff up - only on getbig.

now like i said, run along and leave this thread to the grown ups.

[Necrosis]

you are beyond delusional.

At no point did i mention your bullshit abstract, you argued that i should have read the full paper of the study i posted like like you did (which was more lies from you), and that a mixture of high and low reps is best according to the full study. i pointed out you were full of shit, and there were 4 papers, not 1.

i even highlighted the part that shows a mixture of high and low reps are bad for hypertrophy, and highlighthed that your beliefs and claims of a mixture of reps and 'high reps for the win' were wrong - at no point did i entertain your shit abstract.

you have beed exposed as a liar and a fraud. I have owned you more times that you can count, and your hatred of me has gotten so overwhelming for you that you have snapped and have even admitted you are now making things up to try to catch me out.

you are now once again trying to ignore and deflect what has really went on in this thread, just like you did in the supplement thread. in the vain hope noone has noticed what a sad and pathetic loser you are.

you have admitted you agree with me, you have admitted you made stuff up to catch me out, you have admitted you are an ass - you have owned yourself.

hahahahaha you couldn't make this stuff up - only on getbig.

now like i said, run along and leave this thread to the grown ups.

jesus that was a long response.

i put your paper title into pubmed and received one hit with the same authors. You never searched pubmed because you dont know how to use it, where did you google this shit to?

i did not make it up, it is relevant to hypertrophy but gibberish for the topic at hand. You wouldnt know because you dont know much.

every reponse you attempt character assasination on me and avoid the issues, yet claim im doing it


"you have beed exposed as a liar and a fraud. I have owned you more times that you can count, and your hatred of me has gotten so overwhelming for you that you have snapped and have even admitted you are now making things up to try to catch me out."

quite the imagination, i just wanted to expose another idiot. No one in this thread will take you serious i see one dude who has some knowledge has already gotten frustrated with you, LMAO.


dude lets be serious here for one minute, all in all fucking around with this shit is funny, but do you seriously think what happened in the other thread was anything other then total destruction, come on bro, be real with yourself here. I do get a kick out of watching you melt and claiming to own me in every response=clearly being pwnd, if you have to repeat it over and over you are losing the battle kid.

[Fatpanda]

jesus that was a long response.

i put your paper title into pubmed and received one hit with the same authors. You never searched pubmed because you dont know how to use it, where did you google this shit to?

i did not make it up, it is relevant to hypertrophy but gibberish for the topic at hand. You wouldnt know because you dont know much.

every reponse you attempt character assasination on me and avoid the issues, yet claim im doing it


"you have beed exposed as a liar and a fraud. I have owned you more times that you can count, and your hatred of me has gotten so overwhelming for you that you have snapped and have even admitted you are now making things up to try to catch me out."

quite the imagination, i just wanted to expose another idiot. No one in this thread will take you serious i see one dude who has some knowledge has already gotten frustrated with you, LMAO.


dude lets be serious here for one minute, all in all fucking around with this shit is funny, but do you seriously think what happened in the other thread was anything other then total destruction, come on bro, be real with yourself here. I do get a kick out of watching you melt and claiming to own me in every response=clearly being pwnd, if you have to repeat it over and over you are losing the battle kid.

if you cannot use pubmed, thats your problem. 

please just cease and desist your usual deflection tactics, you have been found out - again. 

as for your abstract,  you are wrong AGAIN - it DOES have something to do with the thread topic, as we are discussing the most optimum rep range for muscle mass. the abstract describes the regulation of muscle mass via molecular and cellular responses to resistance training, it's not rocket science. HAHAHAHAHAHA you are beyond help.

i did not address it as it would have lead the thread down a path i did not want it to go. - lucky for you it seems 

thats right, take a deep breath, you have been owned again 

you really have to let this obsesion with me go, before it turns you insane, i can feel you pain.

i admit you play the game well, you can use pubmed, and use big words to deflect and confuse the issue. however, you have more than met your match as my continued ownings of you can attest.

i understand you can not recover from the amino thread, but you must, its for your own good.

p.s. don't cry son, its only getbig. 

[Fatpanda]

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.

no problem mate.

do you post on hst? i think i recognise your handle.

if so, has there been any juicy studies talked about recently ?

what has happened to dan moore?

[Necrosis]

if you cannot use pubmed, thats your problem. 

please just cease and desist your usual deflection tactics, you have been found out - again. 

as for your abstract,  you are wrong AGAIN - it DOES have something to do with the thread topic, as we are discussing the most optimum rep range for muscle mass. the abstract describes the regulation of muscle mass via molecular and cellular responses to resistance training, it's not rocket science. HAHAHAHAHAHA you are beyond help.

i did not address it as it would have lead the thread down a path i did not want it to go. - lucky for you it seems 

thats right, take a deep breath, you have been owned again 

you really have to let this obsesion with me go, before it turns you insane, i can feel you pain.

i admit you play the game well, you can use pubmed, and use big words to deflect and confuse the issue. however, you have more than met your match as my continued ownings of you can attest.

i understand you can not recover from the amino thread, but you must, its for your own good.

p.s. don't cry son, its only getbig. 

the fact that you call proper scientific terminology "big words" is indicative of your mental midgitry. You must be proud of yourself to be able to use hypertrophy correctly, what about hyperplasia, metaplasia, dysplasia, troponin, inorganic phosphate, the power stroke, actin-myosin complex, sacroplasm

do these also confuse you?

met my match, bwhahahah you have been reading to many comics my friend, this is not the marvel universe and you dont have powers despite the tight costume you are wearing. Ill let you in on a secret, the hulk isnt real, he would get beaten by thor. Actual infinites dont exist, so even in your imaginary world you contradicting reality.

FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Necrosis]

if you cannot use pubmed, thats your problem. 

please just cease and desist your usual deflection tactics, you have been found out - again. 

as for your abstract,  you are wrong AGAIN - it DOES have something to do with the thread topic, as we are discussing the most optimum rep range for muscle mass. the abstract describes the regulation of muscle mass via molecular and cellular responses to resistance training, it's not rocket science. HAHAHAHAHAHA you are beyond help.

i did not address it as it would have lead the thread down a path i did not want it to go. - lucky for you it seems 

thats right, take a deep breath, you have been owned again 

you really have to let this obsesion with me go, before it turns you insane, i can feel you pain.

i admit you play the game well, you can use pubmed, and use big words to deflect and confuse the issue. however, you have more than met your match as my continued ownings of you can attest.

i understand you can not recover from the amino thread, but you must, its for your own good.

p.s. don't cry son, its only getbig. 

"as for your abstract,  you are wrong AGAIN - it DOES have something to do with the thread topic, as we are discussing the most optimum rep range for muscle mass. the abstract describes the regulation of muscle mass via molecular and cellular responses to resistance training, it's not rocket science. HAHAHAHAHAHA you are beyond help."

I wasnt referring to the abstract, this is obvious, as i said i didnt make it up referring to the second post i made on molecular adaptations, the genetic shit. It is relevant to how hypertrophy happens and possible avenues, but does not touch on rep ranges.

again your lack of comprehension is amazing.

[wavelength]

I must say your arguments are quite amusing.

Hey necrosis, may I ask you about the decision process behind changing your name from the ever so fetching "usmokepole" to the even more charming "necrosis"?

[Fatpanda]

the fact that you call proper scientific terminology "big words" is indicative of your mental midgitry. You must be proud of yourself to be able to use hypertrophy correctly, what about hyperplasia, metaplasia, dysplasia, troponin, inorganic phosphate, the power stroke, actin-myosin complex, sacroplasm

do these also confuse you?

met my match, bwhahahah you have been reading to many comics my friend, this is not the marvel universe and you dont have powers despite the tight costume you are wearing. Ill let you in on a secret, the hulk isnt real, he would get beaten by thor. Actual infinites dont exist, so even in your imaginary world you contradicting reality.

FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wooooo more big words  

here's a big word that describes you:

WANK


 

hahahahahahahaha thats not you trying to once again ignore the facts, and deflect - i have exposed you for the fool you are time and time again.

let it go son, you are only humiliating yourself more by these futile attempts at saving face.

I wasnt referring to the abstract, this is obvious, as i said i didnt make it up referring to the second post i made on molecular adaptations, the genetic shit. It is relevant to how hypertrophy happens and possible avenues, but does not touch on rep ranges.

again your lack of comprehension is amazing.

translation = boo hoo boo hoo, please stop owning me, i can't take it anymore, i know, i'll just keep typing in the hope everyone will get bored and not realise what a cock i have exposed myself to be.

necrosis - how apt, as you are giving me brain death reading your pathetic posts.

[Necrosis]

wooooo more big words  

here's a big word that describes you:

WANK


 

hahahahahahahaha thats not you trying to once again ignore the facts, and deflect - i have exposed you for the fool you are time and time again.

let it go son, you are only humiliating yourself more by these futile attempts at saving face.
translation = boo hoo boo hoo, please stop owning me, i can't take it anymore, i know, i'll just keep typing in the hope everyone will get bored and not realise what a cock i have exposed myself to be.

necrosis - how apt, as you are giving me brain death reading your pathetic posts.

FAIL

[disco_stu]

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

to be fair we're talking about a group of untrained men for 8 weeks.

from what i've read, i would be spending some time every year back at the low rep range, and the rest concentrating on sub maximal, structured rep schemes. for drug free training.

[Necrosis]

to be fair we're talking about a group of untrained men for 8 weeks.

from what i've read, i would be spending some time every year back at the low rep range, and the rest concentrating on sub maximal, structured rep schemes. for drug free training.

agreeded. I think low reps are great for endocrine adaptations but if taken to failure they crush the nervous system along with fucking up the cortisol response.

WAVELENGTH.

I changed my name because it is my name on MandM and i am the destroyer of worlds, or at least your cellular world

usmokepole was originally a gimmick, so i decided to change it once i gained mod status, as it was funny to see people try to find aways around calling me usmokepole.

"hey pole"
"hi smokey"
"hey usmoke"
"smokes"

lol.

[Fatpanda]

agreeded. I think low reps are great for endocrine adaptations but if taken to failure they crush the nervous system along with fucking up the cortisol response.

WAVELENGTH.

I changed my name because it is my name on MandM and i am the destroyer of worlds, or at least your cellular world

usmokepole was originally a gimmick, so i decided to change it once i gained mod status, as it was funny to see people try to find aways around calling me usmokepole.

"hey pole"
"hi smokey"
"hey usmoke"
"smokes"

lol.

did none ever just call you wank    i'm sure i wasn't the first.

[Fatpanda]

to be fair we're talking about a group of untrained men for 8 weeks.

from what i've read, i would be spending some time every year back at the low rep range, and the rest concentrating on sub maximal, structured rep schemes. for drug free training.

tim, experienced or not, these meta analysis shows that experienced athletes respond best to a lower rep range too:

do these change your mind?

A Meta-analysis to Determine the Dose Response for Strength Development.

BASIC SCIENCES

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 35(3):456-464, March 2003.
RHEA, MATTHEW R. 1; ALVAR, BRENT A. 1; BURKETT, LEE N. 1; BALL, STEPHEN D. 2
Abstract:
RHEA, M. R., B. A. ALVAR, L. N. BURKETT, and S. D. BALL. A Meta-Analysis to Determine the Dose Response for Strength Development. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 456-464, 2003.

Purpose: The identification of a quantifiable dose-response relationship for strength training is important to the prescription of proper training programs. Although much research has been performed examining strength increases with training, taken individually, they provide little insight into the magnitude of strength gains along the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes. A meta-analysis of 140 studies with a total of 1433 effect sizes (ES) was carried out to identify the dose-response relationship.

Methods: Studies employing a strength-training intervention and containing data necessary to calculate ES were included in the analysis.

Results: ES demonstrated different responses based on the training status of the participants. Training with a mean intensity of 60% of one repetition maximum elicits maximal gains in untrained individuals, whereas 80% is most effective in those who are trained. Untrained participants experience maximal gains by training each muscle group 3 d[middle dot]wk-1 and trained individuals 2 d[middle dot]wk-1. Four sets per muscle group elicited maximal gains in both trained and untrained individuals.

Conclusion: The dose-response trends identified in this analysis support the theory of progression in resistance program design and can be useful in the development of training programs designed to optimize the effort to benefit ratio.



Or how about this one:

Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship.Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA.
Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona 85212, USA. mdpeterz@hotmail.com

The efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of strength training programs are paramount for sport conditioning. Therefore, identifying optimal doses of the training variables allows for maximal gains in muscular strength to be elicited per unit of time and also for the reduction in risk of overtraining and/or overuse injuries. A quantified dose-response relationship for the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes has been identified for recreationally trained populations but has yet to be identified for competitive athletes. The purpose of this analysis was to identify this relationship in collegiate, professional, and elite athletes. A meta-analysis of 37 studies with a total of 370 effect sizes was performed to identify the dose-response relationship among competitive athletes. Criteria for study inclusion were (a) participants must have been competitive athletes at the collegiate or professional level, (b) the study must have employed a strength training intervention, and (c) the study must have included necessary data to calculate effect sizes. Effect size data demonstrate that maximal strength gains are elicited among athletes who train at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. The current data exhibit different dose-response trends than previous meta-analytical investigations with trained and untrained nonathletes. These results demonstrate explicit dose-response trends for maximal strength gains in athletes and may be directly used in strength and conditioning venues to optimize training efficiency and effectiveness.


6-8 reps all the way for me 

[Necrosis]

did none ever just call you wank    i'm sure i wasn't the first.

would you like to fight in real life

[Fatpanda]

would you like to fight in real life

hahahahahahaha don't tell me your another internet hard man 

were you wearing your tapout shirt when you wrote that, pounding the keys.

these ownings are coming too easy.

i might even join mind and muscle, so i can own you over there too.

as i said relax son, its only the internet.

[Cleanest Natural]

I'll weigh in.

There is no point in lifting light if you want to be large and strong. Anything below 80% 1RM is pretty much useless IMO.

The only way to create myofibrillar growth is by damaging the myosin and actin themselves. Low intensity weights (sub 65% 1RM) do little damage to protein structures. Yes, the action "burns". But a "burn" doesn't disrupt fiber integrity. It tells you you've got increased ammonia in the muscle. It tells you that your muscles can't buffer anymore hydrogen ions. Big deal. You can boost ammonia and hydrogen ions like crazy and not disrupt protein structure to a degree necessary to elicit true significant growth.

No disruption = no growth, by and large.

Disruption happens at a peak around 85% to 90% 1RM. And meta-analysis of research shows that most muscle groups can withstand between 50 and 70 repetitions at 85 to 90 1RM per 5 day period. Anything less insufficiently motivates myofibrillar protein disruptions (and therefore falls short of maximizing calpain and immune/cytokine responses, and the further ensuing localized growth factor cascade involving FGF and IGF, MGF, among others.) Do more, and you want to ensure you are a very well trained and coached and fed athlete to ensure you don't overtrain. Most bodybuilders don't overtrain IMO. Most are chronically undertrained, in my experience.

The basic tenets to get big:

1. 50 to 70 repetitions, per muscle group (a lat is a muscle group, and erectors are a separate one, as an example. Your "back" is not a muscle group) per 5 day period. Split these 50 to 70 reps over as many days per week as you can. Lumping them into one workout per 5 day period is not as efficient as doing 10 reps every day for 5 days, for example

2. Lift explosively, as fast as you can, in the concentric. The bar may not move fast at 90% 1RM, but do your best to try. That's what's important. Fight the eccentric, but don't move agonizingly slow. There's benefit (and risk, mind you) in ballistic eccentrics.

3. Focus on multi-joint lifts. Isolation exercises waste time and effort. If given one exercise, we would all squat. If given two, we would deadlift and squat. If given three, we would squat, dead, and press or clean. And so on. Takes a while before you weed out all great multi-joint movements to get to single arm rear cable laterals, doesn't it?

4. Your body is remarkably similar to most humans, despite what your mother tells you (i.e. that your special and not like the other boys). You need heavy weights, and you need to lift that heavy weight often to grow.

5. Different muscles don't respond to different rep ranges. By and large, you have equal slow and fast twitch fibers in most major muscles (exceptions for muscles like soleus and forearm extensors). So, high reps don't work on legs. Heavy weights works on legs. Just like it does for pecs and lats, shoulders and arms. Type IIB fibers grow the fastest (though most eventually convert to type IIA with training). They need 85%1RM to get hit -- lighter weights fail to recruit them efficiently. High intensity loads (supra 85% 1RM) hit them well. Your fibers are recruited in preferential order. The only way to get to the high-threshold fibers is to apply enough intensity. At low intensity, you recruit primarily type I fibers -- not prone to growth. As the intensity increases, so too does motor neural recruitment of fiber packs that are made up of higher densities of fast-twitch glycolytic fibers like the type II variety. So, lift heavy, target the fibers most apt to grow, and do it often. Waste time with light weights, if you like wasting time. Or, hit the type I fibers if your goal is not maximum size or strength.

6. If your pecs don't grow as fast as your delts, it's because you have a mechanical advantage that helps you preferentially recruit shoulder muscles over chest muscles. Maybe it's a lever advantage. Maybe it's a neuromuscular motor pattern you unconsciously learned as a young boy. Whatever it is, you have to unlearn and learn all over again. In this case, again, heavy weights and lots of reps. Teach the muscle to lift and contract against a resistance. By and large, though, weak bodyparts usually stay weak compared to the strong ones. Anabolic products only further exacerbate this problem.


My thoughts, on this most excellent debate.

you are also extremely full of shit :

how big and how strong you get past whatever mommy nature gave you is directly proportional with the quality and quantity of hormones and aas providing that the calories are there ...

other than that you need muscle stimuly and frankly noone gives a fuck if it's heavy light or moderate ...YOU WILL GROW REGARDLESS

SO LIFT MODERATE , EAT RIGHT AND TAKE PLENTY OF QUALITY GEAR IF YOU WANT SIZE ...

TEST, DECA , D-BOL + FOOD

STFU with all that myofibril shit ...fukkin clown

[RC Money]

I agree that no matter how scientific you get at the end of the day a natural has their individual limit.

I think the first 6 years or so can be drastic especialy the first 3 or so and after that its small gains if any and refinements to ones physique and strength.

The advantage a natty has is that you never get smaller or weaker, you are always improving to an extent.

I say lift heavy, eat a lot and as far as over training or not I'm undecided cause I always feel something positive from both, when ever I over train for a few months I dont get much heavier but do get denser and harder and when training is moderate volume without going much past failure i tend to get a little bigger but a litle bloated as well with over all more consistant strength gains.

[Cleanest Natural]

You're entitled to your opinion. I won't tell you to STFU though -- I'll show you respect.

What would you recommend if someone didn't want to use "hormones"? Not everyone does or wants to. What then? Does your opinion change, or is still just provide any kind of stimulus, and eat?

IF YOU WANNA GO THE NATURAL ROUTE :

EAT

LIFT WITH CARE (don't try to be ronnie )

more recovery time

RESULT : YOU'LL BE SMALL ...YOUR NATURAL PLATEAU ...WHATEVER THAT IS ...WON'T BE ANYTHINGTO WRITE MOMMY ABOUT

YOU'LL BE FATTER ....5'11" WILL BE 180 LBS LEAN @ 8% BODYFAT ...

UNDER 200 LBS WITH 10-12 @

UNDER 165-170 MAX WITH FATBURNERS AND 6 % BECAUSE NATURAL YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET VERY LEAN ...

SO EITHER WAY : NATURAL = NO BODYBUILDING   

So yeah ...just eat and lift some and whatever mommy nature gave you you'll attain withing 3 years ...max ...and you'll stay there for as long as you lift and eat the same :

more calories + fater ..

but muscle wise : genetic limit

ps : apologies for the STFU .. 

[Fatpanda]

I'll weigh in.

There is no point in lifting light if you want to be large and strong. Anything below 80% 1RM is pretty much useless IMO.

The only way to create myofibrillar growth is by damaging the myosin and actin themselves. Low intensity weights (sub 65% 1RM) do little damage to protein structures. Yes, the action "burns". But a "burn" doesn't disrupt fiber integrity. It tells you you've got increased ammonia in the muscle. It tells you that your muscles can't buffer anymore hydrogen ions. Big deal. You can boost ammonia and hydrogen ions like crazy and not disrupt protein structure to a degree necessary to elicit true significant growth.

No disruption = no growth, by and large.

Disruption happens at a peak around 85% to 90% 1RM. And meta-analysis of research shows that most muscle groups can withstand between 50 and 70 repetitions at 85 to 90 1RM per 5 day period. Anything less insufficiently motivates myofibrillar protein disruptions (and therefore falls short of maximizing calpain and immune/cytokine responses, and the further ensuing localized growth factor cascade involving FGF and IGF, MGF, among others.) Do more, and you want to ensure you are a very well trained and coached and fed athlete to ensure you don't overtrain. Most bodybuilders don't overtrain IMO. Most are chronically undertrained, in my experience.

The basic tenets to get big:

1. 50 to 70 repetitions, per muscle group (a lat is a muscle group, and erectors are a separate one, as an example. Your "back" is not a muscle group) per 5 day period. Split these 50 to 70 reps over as many days per week as you can. Lumping them into one workout per 5 day period is not as efficient as doing 10 reps every day for 5 days, for example

2. Lift explosively, as fast as you can, in the concentric. The bar may not move fast at 90% 1RM, but do your best to try. That's what's important. Fight the eccentric, but don't move agonizingly slow. There's benefit (and risk, mind you) in ballistic eccentrics.

3. Focus on multi-joint lifts. Isolation exercises waste time and effort. If given one exercise, we would all squat. If given two, we would deadlift and squat. If given three, we would squat, dead, and press or clean. And so on. Takes a while before you weed out all great multi-joint movements to get to single arm rear cable laterals, doesn't it?

4. Your body is remarkably similar to most humans, despite what your mother tells you (i.e. that your special and not like the other boys). You need heavy weights, and you need to lift that heavy weight often to grow.

5. Different muscles don't respond to different rep ranges. By and large, you have equal slow and fast twitch fibers in most major muscles (exceptions for muscles like soleus and forearm extensors). So, high reps don't work on legs. Heavy weights works on legs. Just like it does for pecs and lats, shoulders and arms. Type IIB fibers grow the fastest (though most eventually convert to type IIA with training). They need 85%1RM to get hit -- lighter weights fail to recruit them efficiently. High intensity loads (supra 85% 1RM) hit them well. Your fibers are recruited in preferential order. The only way to get to the high-threshold fibers is to apply enough intensity. At low intensity, you recruit primarily type I fibers -- not prone to growth. As the intensity increases, so too does motor neural recruitment of fiber packs that are made up of higher densities of fast-twitch glycolytic fibers like the type II variety. So, lift heavy, target the fibers most apt to grow, and do it often. Waste time with light weights, if you like wasting time. Or, hit the type I fibers if your goal is not maximum size or strength.

6. If your pecs don't grow as fast as your delts, it's because you have a mechanical advantage that helps you preferentially recruit shoulder muscles over chest muscles. Maybe it's a lever advantage. Maybe it's a neuromuscular motor pattern you unconsciously learned as a young boy. Whatever it is, you have to unlearn and learn all over again. In this case, again, heavy weights and lots of reps. Teach the muscle to lift and contract against a resistance. By and large, though, weak bodyparts usually stay weak compared to the strong ones. Anabolic products only further exacerbate this problem.


My thoughts, on this most excellent debate.

thanks for your input snx, fantastic stuff, i agree entirely 

[Fatpanda]

the thing with having a natural limit, i do not believe we are close to it, as science still has more secrets to reveal regarding optimum ways to grow, etc

For example when i first started working out at 17, i messed around with free weights in my room, i got stronger and bigger, despite having a poor diet. by around 18 i thought i maxed out, as i was making extremely small to non existant gains till i was 21.

Then at 21 i joined a gym, and added a variety of different excercises, and playing different sports and grew some more, in fact i would say physically i was at a peak, both in strength and cardio performance - although i still thought i could get bigger and stronger as i saw bodybuilders in magazined that put me to shame ( i was still nieve and believed they were all natural), i read up on diets, and eating more protein etc.

Then around 22 i joined what i would call a real gym - hardcore lifters, big strong, and pumping those lighter weights set after set, so i copied them for years. My diet was slightly better then, i.e. eating every piece of meat i saw, and i got bigger and fatter, yet weaker, but i didn't care i was a bodybuilder  eventually working out 2 hours a day every day burned me out, and had to take a break, the amount of colds and flus i was geting made me think i had some sort of disease. I was weaker than i had ever been, not as dense, i could barely walk without being out of breath, etc.

anyway i took this time to re-evaluate, and educate myself in proper nutrition, and excercise science. i discovered how big of a part steroids play in bodybuilding. i read books like supertraining by mel siff, serious strength training by bompa, science and practice of strength training by zatorski, and tons of others like dorians, arnolds, and mentzer's books. not to mention the nutrition books and pubmed abstracts and full studies.

In the end i feel i am back where i started with studies like the ones above that showing that heavy weight is best for hypertrophy and strength - which tied into my own experiences when i first started experimenting, as this is when i made my best gains, in size and strength too. (a few years after the initial newbie gains)

Its sad to say but the more i learned about bodybuilding from listening to bodybuilders the less i learned about building a great body.

as for reaching a natural peak, just in the past few years we have learned about the length of time that protein synthesis remains elevated after a workout, and eaa's role in protein synthesis, how insulin can benefit bodybuilders if taken at the right times, etc

even the strength and mass studies are revealing more and more like showing how heavy low rep sets are best for strength/mass and what the optimum volume, and frequency should be for maximum results.

so in a few years, i believe we will know even more, and with each piece of info we will take the natural physique to a new previously thought impossible level 

[Cleanest Natural]

 

some people never get it ..

[Fatpanda]

some people never get it ..

hahahahahaha yes you never have - even with your 1500mg of test  per week and 100 mg dbol a day 

you should read more of this thread sava, clearly the high rep pump sets are not working.

[Necrosis]

hahahahahahaha don't tell me your another internet hard man 

were you wearing your tapout shirt when you wrote that, pounding the keys.

these ownings are coming too easy.

i might even join mind and muscle, so i can own you over there too.

as i said relax son, its only the internet.

alright where do you live

i have enough airmiles to get pretty far

[wavelength]

I changed my name because it is my name on MandM and i am the destroyer of worlds, or at least your cellular world

usmokepole was originally a gimmick, so i decided to change it once i gained mod status, as it was funny to see people try to find aways around calling me usmokepole.

"hey pole"
"hi smokey"
"hey usmoke"
"smokes"

lol.

Next name will be "cancerofthecunt" then?

[Fatpanda]

Next name will be "cancerofthecunt" then?

I think he should call himself 'piles'

because he's a pain in the arse that no one likes to see around.