I am not asserting that volume training does not create muscle hypertrophy; however, I am asserting that low reps with high weights (less volume) can be and is equally effective.
This is easily demonstrable as being false by pointing out that powerlifters have less muscle mass than bodybuilders despite being stronger, and that the most common complain from those who do one-set-to-failure is that they experience strengh gains but little gains in muscle mass.
Sprinters focus primarily on olympic lifts, e.g. power cleans, push press, snatches, etc., but also do a lot of deadlifting and squatting with LOW reps at HIGH weight. This is to maximize fast twitch muscle fibers for explosive power. Sprinters DO NOT train like bodybuilders
When did I say they train like bodybuilders? I said their weight training is more similar to that of bodybuilders than that of powerlifters. And sprinters do a lot of volume. If you assume that each step running is a rep, they do literally hundreds in sequence.
And again, this example of yours does nothing to disprove my theory. Do sprinters have as much muscle mass as bodybuilders? No, they don't. Not even in the quads. Compare the quads of a sprinter on steroids, like Ben Johnson, to that of a pro bodybuilder and the bodybuilder has a lot more muscle. In the case of sprinters, though their relative lack of muscle mass is not due to a lack of volume in training, but too much volume. They consume all the ATP and glycogen and then the muscle itself is cannibilized to generate energy. Their training is high intensity, but the volume is too high. A more extreme example are distance runners, who actually have less muscle overral than a sedentary individual due to the high volume of training. They are the etremee opposite of the powerlifter. You: fail.
- their workouts are much more similar to powerlifting. And, duh, sprinters focus primarily on running - so of course they do not have the size of either a powerlifter or bodybuilder, but are nonetheless muscular (see pics).
Then why did you bring up this stupid example, genius? How can you know if their muscle mass is the result of heavy weights and low reps or from the, you know, sprinting they do? The last time I checked, sprinting or even 100 meters involves a pretty high level of volume, given that you'll move each of your legs as much as 100 times? And if sprinters do heavy weights with low reps and yet have less muscle mass than bodybuilders, even in the quad department, then how does this prove that heavy weights with low volume work more for mass? For fuck sake, you are dumb. You: fail again.
This is relevant to our discussion because it proves that lower volume training does effectively build muscle.
Of course it does, idiot. I never claimed otherwise. Powerlifters have a lot more muscle than sedentary people. It does not, however, build muscle as effectively as multiple sets with higher volume. That is my point. You'll need big pec and triceps muscles to bench 600 lbs even for a single rep; however, benching 400 lbs for 10 will require more because the physiological strain that number of reps imposes exceeds what the muscle can deal with in terms of ATP storage and clearance o lactic acid. Fail. Again.
You are seriously embarrassing yourself man. Do a little research, educate yourself just a little with the basics of training, and then get back to me. Honestly, spend two seconds of your ignorant time doing this before you get on here and attempt to insult me.
You can't even properly understand the articles you post, and you tell me that I am being embarassed?
Here is some simple reading to bring you up to speed:
sprinter’s legs are usually much more muscular than the legs of any other types of runners. This is because the sprinter gains a great deal of power from the legs and building up these muscles helps to give him the explosiveness he needs to propel himself over the course as quickly as possible.
No, the reason why the legs of distance runners are smaller than that of sprinters is because the amount of volume they do is counterproductive to muscle gains. The superior muscle mass o sprinters results from:
- Lower volume of work which depletes less of the body's reserves and
- The speed of muscular contraction.
Contracting your muscles faster has the same effect of increasing the number of reps: it imposes a strain on the ability of the muscle fiber to contract with enough force with the maximum neuronal output it has and energy reserves, so the muscle fiber needs to increase in size to deal with the stress.
And again, how is the sprinter's traning evidence that heavy weights with low volume works? You'd need to demonstrate that it works better than multiple sets like bodybuilders do. But it doesen't. So your point, once again, is retarded. You. Fail. Again.
Weight lifting exercises which are active but also focus on the lower body are very important for sprinters. This includes exercises such as weighted lunges and weighted squats. When performing these exercises sprinters should be focusing on using heavier weights and performing fewer repetitions. This will help to encourage muscle growth which is necessary for improved speed.
Funny that Ben Johnson did sets of 15 reps, and did exercises like leg extensions. But I digress. What evidence does the author of the article give to support his claim? How many are "lower" reps? My guess is that what he's really saying is to do 6 to 8 reps instead of 15. This is not powerlifting training. And you can bet your ass that sprinters do multiple sets. But in any case, they most certainly do less volume than bodybuilders because they need their energy for sprinting. And it shows, because they have less muscle than the bodybuilders. And lower reps do build mass better starting at some point. Over 15 reps the volume of stress exceeds ATP stores completely and muscle tissue startes to be canibilized for fuel. So doing lower reps than that will work for mass whilst 15+ reps will work for endurance. You didn't make clear when the guy said that lower reps will build muscle better below which point he was talking. Lower than what? You: fail: moron.
If you took a survey of most average guys I am willing to bet that 99.9% of them would choose to look like an Olympic sprinter over just about any other physique option you gave them.
And what the fuck has this got to do with anything? This discussion is about what method of training results in the most muscle mass, not about what physique most people want to have. If you go by that criteria, then most people would want to have Hugh Jackman's physique and not that of any athlete. Your point is? Oh, right: you have none. As usual.
Lean muscular and athletic lookingSo how do you build that kind of functional, muscular physique? Well first of all you need
Here is an interesting forum discussion on the topic:
More irrelevant garbage that has nothing to do with the topic under contention. Epic fail.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
