what do you guys think of my new training program?

[Shawdow]

for each muscle group 10 sets of 3 reps
not going to failure, stopping 1 rep short of it
each muscle group is worked once a week
this will trigger the most amount of myofibral hypertrophy?
it will surely make you stronger also.

any suggestions are welcome!

[andreisdaman]

I'm assuming that the reps will be performed at the highest weight possible for you to lift?..since the rep range of three is so small?

[Shawdow]

I'm assuming that the reps will be performed at the highest weight possible for you to lift?..since the rep range of three is so small?

yes, 85-90% of my one rep max

[pumpster]

You're not going to get your full potential without going to failure at least some of the time. Let's face it those who don't go to failure probaby don't like the extra work involved with pushing the envelope, but will never admit it. It's convenient instead to claim that it's part of some new philisophy.

[dyslexic]

nobody has actually figured out just exactly what will cause the most "myofibral hypertrophy'- short of knocking out the myostatin gene

[QuakerOats]

You're not going to get your full potential without going to failure at least some of the time. Let's face it those who don't go to failure probaby don't like the extra work involved with pushing the envelope, but will never admit it. It's convenient instead to claim that it's part of some new philisophy.

i agree but if he actually DOES take all those sets to failure it could be a solid program, 10 sets of 3 with max weight will build some size and a hell of a lot of strength if done seriously, he'd probably build more size in the 6-10 rep range though, i remember reading about Markus Ruhl doing a program similar to the one this guy listed a few years ago.

[pumpster]

i agree but if he actually DOES take all those sets to failure it could be a solid program

Ya agreed, i was only adding to what i think he left out otherwise it's good.

The more volume you do, the less often are sets taken to failure. In which case do less volume and go to failure each set is what i suggest, but others like the volume approach.

[leonp1981]

If you don't train to failure, then you never really know what you can lift.  You can easily pick a weight and say, this is 85% of my 1RM, then only do 3 reps.  But if you kept going, you might surprise yourself and get 4, 5 or 6 reps with it.  I'd be taking at least the last 2-3 sets to failure.

It also helps the following week, when you can try and beat your previous week.  I've always thought that it's better to push yourself by having a target to aim for, whether it's 1 more rep with the same weight, or the same reps with another 2lbs on the bar.

[dyslexic]

How can you possibly use Markus Ruhl as an example?


All things being  equal...

[pumpster]

If you don't train to failure, then you never really know what you can lift. 

Bingo. Comes back to what i said about realizing full potential. Taking it easy you never know what's been left on the table. Plus as mentioned let's face it the guys who don't go to failure aren't working that hard-the excuse about training that way as part of a theory is rather convenient!

[jpm101]

Shawdow's 10X3's are geared more for strength than pure muscle building. PL'ers and Olympic lifters use similar programs for just that reason, though from 3 to 6 sets mostly and a longer time between sets (3 minutes at the least). Reaching a point of failure is never an option with them. Usually a rep away from that. They know better. 

If you had shorter breaks between set's of 10X3's, as from 45 to 60 seconds, than that may encourage muscle growth. Old saying in BB'ing, " More blood, more muscle" and with that shorter break a slight pump can occur, even with that low rep range. 10X3's are also used by a lot by lifters who want to remain in their selective  weight class and not gain any extra muscle. Strength and muscle gains do not always go hand in hand. If more food is taken in than a weight gain is possible, though a large percentage might be fat. Depends a lot of body type. If your one of the few who can gain muscular weight, than go for it.

If you want to go to the extreme than consider 10X10's (GVT). I am going by the assumption that you are only using one exercise per body part. Has worked great for BB'ers and serious lifters who want to increase strength and maybe advance up (gain muscle mass) to a higher lifting class during off season. Good Luck

Side Bar: As most of us know, going to failure has nothing to do with finding out what you can lift as part of a regular workouts. Not going to failure does not mean than anyone is not working extremely hard in a regular workout.

[pumpster]

Sets of 3 are more for strength but will still create some development though they're not ideal.

Side Bar: As most of us know, going to failure has nothing to do with finding out what you can lift as part of a regular workouts. Not going to failure does not mean than anyone is not working extremely hard in a regular workout.

One can't fall short of failure and be "working "extremely hard", they are mutually exclusive.
 
Those who believe these two things co-exist show that their own standards of hard work are low. Avoiding failure all the time, especially armed with the standard excuse that there's a theory behind it, is a tacit, unspoken admission that true hard work is too taxing and must be avoided at all cost.

[wild willie]

Get the reps up to between 6 and 12 for muscle growth! IMHO

[jpm101]

Of course there is a big difference between hard work while training and just training stupid. Too bad but dumb workouts seem to be the norm and are probably the main reason so many guy's look the same year after year. Wonder why people do not understand the principle of recovery from workout to workout. For most, going to failure every workout tends to slow or delay normal progress. That's why these guy's are  changing programs all the time. Nothing seems to work. Bet if some backed off a bit from complete failure they might have a different attitude about it.  But if going to failure works like magic for anyone, than good for them. Good Luck.

[pumpster]

Of course there is a big difference between hard work while training and just training stupid. Too bad but dumb workouts seem to be the norm and are probably the main reason so many guy's look the same year after year. Wonder why people do not understand the principle of recovery from workout to workout. For most, going to failure every workout tends to slow or delay normal progress. That's why these guy's are  changing programs all the time. Nothing seems to work. Bet if some backed off a bit from complete failure they might have a different attitude about it.  But if going to failure works like magic for anyone, than good for them. Good Luck.

Recovery is over-rated in terms of th extreme layoffs between workouts that's in vogue with some now. Guys like Larry Scott and Schwarzenegger went to failure on some sets every workout, and worked out more frequently and did ok i'd say.

The more often one exercises, the lesser the soreness between workouts ("repeated bout syndrom"), within reason. What's reasonable is 2-3 days rest between workouts for full recovery when hitting each muscle twice weekly.

[QuakerOats]

How can you possibly use Markus Ruhl as an example?


All things being  equal...

he's a human being who lifts weights isn't he?

[jon cole]

"training is not rocket science"

[pumpster]

"training is not rocket science"

Maybe not some basics, but even top guys learned over time how they could become more effective. They had to acquire that knowledge, it wasn't that simple.

[jpm101]

 Hendrix, Jimmy Page, Clapton, Wes Montgomer, Benson, Reinhardt were only humans who played guitar. But you can not use them as any example of how you should learned  riffs, cords or any thing else and be just like them. Guitar Hero can only take you so far.

Same would apply using Ruhl, Arnold, Coleman or any other top BB'er as examples and trying to mimic how they trained ( or how you thought they trained after reading about them or watching video's of training sessions......  both have a good dose of BS in all of them). All theses folks are the special breed of humans, given the inner abilities to make the most of their muscle mass potentials. Most of these guy's get more out of 1 or 2  sets than normal trainee's get out of 10. Really are muscle building machines, pretty much whatever they may do in workouts. And with the extra chemical  boost added, there seems to be no limit. 

 If someone say's that Yates, Coleman, Cutler or anyone else work's out this or that way and that you should, than be cautious. That can be a misleading example for the average lifter. Everyone has to find his own groove in building mass. Indeed, training is not rocket science. But anyone might  hold the though of K.I.S.S. in mind when seeking success in BB'ing or any thing else. Good Luck.

[pumpster]

Hendrix, Jimmy Page, Clapton, Wes Montgomer, Benson, Reinhardt were only humans who played guitar. But you can not use them as any example of how you should learned  riffs, cords or any thing else and be just like them. Guitar Hero can only take you so far.

Same would apply using Ruhl, Arnold, Coleman or any other top BB'er as examples and trying to mimic how they trained ( or how you thought they trained after reading about them or watching video's of training sessions......  both have a good dose of BS in all of them). All theses folks are the special breed of humans, given the inner abilities to make the most of their muscle mass potentials. Most of these guy's get more out of 1 or 2  sets than normal trainee's get out of 10. Really are muscle building machines, pretty much whatever they may do in workouts. And with the extra chemical  boost added, there seems to be no limit. 

 If someone say's that Yates, Coleman, Cutler or anyone else work's out this or that way and that you should, than be cautious. That can be a misleading example for the average lifter. Everyone has to find his own groove in building mass. Indeed, training is not rocket science. But anyone might  hold the though of K.I.S.S. in mind when seeking success in BB'ing or any thing else. Good Luck.

This lengthy dissertation proves nothing either way, other than unintentionally reinforcing my point. The riffs of musicians are in fact one of many avenues used by well-known and lesser-known musicians to improve themselves.

[dyslexic]

he's a human being who lifts weights isn't he?

Yeah, O.K.


Why don't you just train to his video and then sue him when you don't end up looking like him after 10 years. Markus Ruhl is so extremely juiced, how could you possibly compare his work to yours? Why wouldn't you get this?


I would think working out the exact opposite of him would be more productive.

[tbombz]

Hendrix, Jimmy Page, Clapton, Wes Montgomer, Benson, Reinhardt were only humans who played guitar. But you can not use them as any example of how you should learned  riffs, cords or any thing else and be just like them. Guitar Hero can only take you so far.

Same would apply using Ruhl, Arnold, Coleman or any other top BB'er as examples and trying to mimic how they trained ( or how you thought they trained after reading about them or watching video's of training sessions......  both have a good dose of BS in all of them). All theses folks are the special breed of humans, given the inner abilities to make the most of their muscle mass potentials. Most of these guy's get more out of 1 or 2  sets than normal trainee's get out of 10. Really are muscle building machines, pretty much whatever they may do in workouts. And with the extra chemical  boost added, there seems to be no limit. 

 If someone say's that Yates, Coleman, Cutler or anyone else work's out this or that way and that you should, than be cautious. That can be a misleading example for the average lifter. Everyone has to find his own groove in building mass. Indeed, training is not rocket science. But anyone might  hold the though of K.I.S.S. in mind when seeking success in BB'ing or any thing else. Good Luck.

genetics. blah. absolutely zero science or proof that any human being has any more potential for building musle than anyother human being. gentic differences in hormones can play a role, however in BODYBUILDING, everyone manipulates their hormones anyway, so 'genetics' doesnt apply much in terms of gaining muscle. blah.

[jpm101]

Tbombz: Put the blunt down, back away from the keyboard and apologize to yourself for the above statements.  You will feel better later. Good Luck.