is getting a pump really related to stimulating hypertrophy?

[Donny]

Rather go with pearl ....leave the gym with gas in the tank...motivated to work out again. I like getting a pump . I like volume but not too crazy..just enough to do the job .

[dj181]

I don't think training with volume is pure endurance like a long distance runner or biker. It's still lifting weights. The muscles of a bodybuilder is the result of muscular endurance training. If it wasn't Olympic lifters and power lifters would have the biggest thighs from their insane intensity.

 Speaking of big thighs have you seen the thighs of bike sprint competitors? Huge from racing around a track doing a lot of reps spinning the crank.

 Remember a lot of volume trainers beat Mike in a lot of contests. He didn't come in second in the 1980 Olympia he came in 5th. Even Viator at his best was training with volume for the London Olympia. Mentzer still has the most influence on my training over my life but I cannot discount other forms of training.

I don't want to get into a volume vs HIT debate. The facts stand that the over whelming amount of champs trained with volume and not hit. One of the ways Jones used to promote the sales of his Nautilus machine was to find a champion bodybuilder who used volume then promote them as the result of one set of 12 Nautilus machines.

I trained with high intensity for decades. I have many of the issues that Arthur Jones wrote in Ironman magazine back in the early 70's I believe when few if any bodybuilders knew who he was. He use to have an animal program that was semi popular on tv. I was really into what Jones and Mentzer had to say. In the early 80's when everyone was doing volume in the gym I was copying Mentzer's workouts. Complete with pre exhaust. I still have what I think is the most complete collection of everything Mentzer wrote in the magazines.

you're getting lost in this hit vs. volume thing and not seeing the forest through the trees

here's the golden rule... increased training loads=bigger muscles

i've never seen anyone who was able to get bigger muscles without increasing thier training loads

[Mr Nobody]

you're getting lost in this hit vs. volume thing and not seeing the forest through the trees

here's the golden rule... increased training loads=bigger muscles

i've never seen anyone who was able to get bigger muscles without increasing thier training loads

It's simple, train heavier each workout or increase reps to a certain level. Diet is secondary depending on calorie intake. Pump really means nothing other your heart pushing blood to the muscle. Now as Serge Nubret he trained all day taking breaks here and there but if you quit doing that muscle goes away fast. Best to stay with heavy weights, diet and mild cardio.

[doriancutlerman]

i couldnt agree more
take a begginner who squats 135x15 and take his squat over the years to 400 x 15 - 20 in good form and nine times out often his legs will be much much bigger.

Hell yes.

Anytime someone tries to compare some scrawny "strong" guy to a big, "weak" guy, the point's already set sail, left harbor and is so far beyond their heads, they'd best wait for the next damn boat.  It's not apples to apples; you have to compare individuals relative to their strength increases.

In addition to that, yeah, you're gonna have 20 rep squatters who move massive weights but don't have thighs to speak of.  That's mostly a function of genetics, not training.  Tom Platz was sure a big fan of high-rep squats (500x23, anyone?), and his wheels didn't exactly suck.  Interestingly, Fred Hatfield's legs DID suck, yet he could squat more weight for a single than Tom could -- past Tom's prime, but still.

When you get into that 20 rep range, things change a little.  IMO, that's as much endurance as it is strength.

A better test would be something like this ...

Show me a man who started with average lifts (struggling with, say, a 155 lb. bench and/or squat) and, over time, built up to 365 for 8-10 strict reps on the flat bench and 495 for 8-10 ass-to-grass squats.  If HE didn't grow into something respectable by most any metric, I'll concede the argument.

As far as the so-called importance of a pump, I've never trained like an Olympic lifter.  Do they typically get pumps in their traps, quads and delts from the singles they largely practice?  If not, how come they DO typically sport great traps, delts and quads?

(One could just as easily run in the opposite direction vis-a-vis gymnasts.  Again, I've never followed a gymnast through a workout, but I understand that they spend a LOT of time in the gym, day after day, year after year -- and there's no denying their upper-body development (yes, even if they are usually shredded, under a buck 50 and look far more muscular onscreen than they might if you stood shoulder-to-shoulder with one of them).)

Some people look at Olympic lifting and gymnastics to "disprove" Mentzer and company's ideas.  Not so, friends ... that's a classic case of the false dilemma fallacy (a.k.a. bifurcation, a.k.a. false dichotomy, a.k.a. either/or fallacy, etc., etc.).  Mentzer was all about overcompensation, and that IS something that [largely explosive] Olympic lifts, sans slow negatives, can accomplish.  It's something that a dude working his butt off on parallel bars can do, even if it takes two hours for him to really kick his own ass.

At the same time, I've done some Mentzerian-style workouts, often with one or two training partners.  We tried one psycho's brand of "rest-pause" lifting.  

Did it result in a pump?  Err ... hold that thought***.  We did two sets per bodypart.  After warming up with light shit, we did the full stack on the Nautilus Duo-Chest crossover.  I was just a pup then, 16, so the full fucking stack was a hair much for me.  OK:  it was WAY too much for me.  But these guys threw on the stack and made me do a rep, with their assistance.  

After that, I had a 10 second rest, and thank God they lightened the weight to more like 210-220.  I could budge it a few inches, then they might me fight every each 'til I got to the top -- then [very slowly] counted down from 10 as I lowered the weight.

I'll interrupt my own little tale and say that I gained sweet FUCK ALL from that kind of training. I think it was just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaay too stressful, even for a 16-year-old kid who wanted to be Mr. Olympia.

***Yes, that kind of lifting did result in a pump.  It set in shortly after I finished lifting and lasted literally ALL g'damn day.  Even the next morning, the trained areas were sore and stuff but still moderately pumped -- and believe you me, I know the difference between an actual pump and simple edema/inflammation after I've had my boyfriend violate me so many times ... err, I mean, after I ... *sigh*  Too late.  The cat's out of the bag now!  LOL  (I am just kidding, for the humor-impaired.  But I've learned it's best 'round these parts to go ahead and at least feign some kind of faggish proclivities, then joke about them rather than say something that a closeted "fella" would be only too eager to misconstrue .)

[oldtimer1]

you're getting lost in this hit vs. volume thing and not seeing the forest through the trees

here's the golden rule... increased training loads=bigger muscles

i've never seen anyone who was able to get bigger muscles without increasing thier training loads

So if you train with volume you can't increase your training loads as you call it? You can increase the weight with both volume and hit. How strong can you get? I guess if you train for 10 years you can bench 1000lbs.  Increasing the difficulty of a work out is increasing the weight. Increasing the amount of reps from what you failed at. Decreasing the amount of time it takes to perform a workout from your last attempt.

The point I'm trying to get is that the goal of HIT is getting stronger. So if you trained hard in cycles for 5 years and you are stuck at a 315 bench for a year are you at your genetic limitation? Time to find another hobby? Using volume you can work on increasing strength endurance for a long time. So using 5 sets of 10 you fail at 8 reps on that last set. Next goal is to get 9 reps. When you get to 10 time to increase the weight or complete the workout quicker.

[dj181]

So if you train with volume you can't increase your training loads as you call it?

i never said that man, but sure you can increase your training loads with volume training although volume training never did shit for me

do you agree with this statement? "once you get to the point where you can't lift heavier loads then you will not get bigger muscles"

[oldtimer1]

Again progression is weight, increasing reps and performing the workout in a shorter length of time.  If you take someone new to training who can curl 80lbs for a 10 rep failure he will not advance if every workout he does 10 reps with 80lbs. He has to try to try for that 11th rep. He has to try to add 5lbs.  

I'm out of this hit vs volume discussion. I already see some of the followers of the HIT religion coming out of the wood work. Again I have trained with HIT in the 70's, 80's, 90's and for many years of the 2000's. I just never got into the HIT attitude of their superiority complex. Bodybuilding fans can be a strange group of misfits.

I have just found an appreciation for volume. I was a track sprinter in high school and college. A 100 meter guy wouldn't never say to a 10K guy your training is easy. Mine is intense and yours is easy. Yet in lifting you hear that kind of talk constantly. Volume is tough. Those who just use HIT would have their eyes opened if they trained with some volume trainers about how easy volume trainers have it. Sarcasm.

 The reality both train hard but it's comparing apples to oranges. In the HIT world you hear variations of, if you don't follow my version of HIT you are stupid. You constantly hear I train hard and you don't if you are doing multiple sets. Let me tell you that training with volume is brutal. In track a distance runner might go for a hard fast 5 mile run. A sprinter 8 x 200 meters.

The truth is that the over whelming amount of champion bodybuilders have used volume. The standard HIT answer to that is so have the failures. That could be said of HIT too. Just you tube some of these HIT fanatics and you will find a lot of out of shape guys. Not out of shape by bodybuilding standard but by any standard.

[njflex]

It's simple, train heavier each workout or increase reps to a certain level. Diet is secondary depending on calorie intake. Pump really means nothing other your heart pushing blood to the muscle. Now as Serge Nubret he trained all day taking breaks here and there but if you quit doing that muscle goes away fast. Best to stay with heavy weights, diet and mild cardio.

this,,,

[Soul Crusher]

Why not just do all of it?

Train with Heavy Weights, Train with lighter weights and less rest and train to failure.

That is what i have tried this year and my levrl of fitness overall has improved immensly as opposed to just going heavy

[njflex]

That is what i have tried this year and my levrl of fitness overall has improved immensly as opposed to just going heavy

heavy,heavy all the time ..365...just leads to injuries and down time in the gym,,u have to train around all the peaks and valleys,,stay lean or as close to ,,mix it up as stated on this thread.

[njflex]

as for stronger muscle being bigger.

this is so relative, i wont go there.you cannot define what is a stronger muscle.
 
also, getting stronger being require to further grow is bullshit and not proven.

at some point you dont get stronger no more.you think coleman got stronger in his last couple years?he didnt.

when strenght has peaked, theres other ways to grow, pre exhaust etc.

my legs grew to their best shape with relatively light squats.

good points,,

[prizm]

another thing is, my arms, theyre not the biggest guns out there, but theyre striated 18inch on small frame.

i can do skullcrushers with 160lbs for 10 clean reps,i can do bar curls with full range and slow with olympic bar and 1 plate each side for 8reps.

but you know how i train the arms most of the time?

i do cable stuff for triceps, skullcrushers with 70lbs for many many reps, biceps curls with 25lbs dumbells.

and it makes fuck all of a difference.

the one difference is, my joints dont hurt the next day if i go light.

the thing is you have that strength reserve/ability..that contributed to your arm size. twig arms arent going to do slow clean reps on skulls with 160x10 or curl 135x8..theyre going to have size, and can also be maintained using lighter weights

[anabolichalo]

biceps work hard in supinated pull downs

when doing curls i isolate them and dont worry about a big weight

[dj181]

the thing is you have that strength reserve/ability..that contributed to your arm size. twig arms arent going to do slow clean reps on skulls with 160x10 or curl 135x8..theyre going to have size, and can also be maintained using lighter weights

THIS

yes g's arms have size, but they ain't gonna get any bigger than they are now unless he lifts bigger weight

and yes, you can maintain your size with lesser weights, but that happens AFTER you build the size 1st

i built my lats up doing rows with a 125 pound bell for 10 reps and now i will maintain thier size doing rows with a 100 pound bell for 10 reps (at least i sure as hell hope so lol)

[Ropo]

lifting as much as you can for a few reps (<5) flattens your muscles in my experience. The idea is to build volume and dimension into your muscles.

let me give you an example, a few years ago i could bench 3 plates for a four while i was training with the mentality of heavier is better but i stopped growing, i dropped to 2 plates and made the lift difficult for myself by slowing it down etc and started growing again..... maxing out weight wise is worthless in my opinion

What a ridiculous bulsshit you write there. Don't you know what is the problem there? With the heavy weights you still must maintain perfect form and ROM, and you muscles grow. If you don't or can't do that, feel free to use lighter weights. Problem is simple. Most of you guys use heavy weights to pumping your ego with 2" ROM and shitty form. That takes you nowhere what comes building muscles, it is a waste of time.

[mesmorph78]

heavy,heavy all the time ..365...just leads to injuries and down time in the gym,,u have to train around all the peaks and valleys,,stay lean or as close to ,,mix it up as stated on this thread.

This is true
Some body parts just don't need super heavy training for eg
Arms my arms are close to 20 cold now and I dont them super heavy that's just counter productive as it kills the joints .. So you won't catch me hitting under 8 reps for arms.
But for back and chest I think heavy training is benificaial but still never under 8 reps aside from dead lifts

[Donny]

as for stronger muscle being bigger.

this is so relative, i wont go there.you cannot define what is a stronger muscle.
 
also, getting stronger being require to further grow is bullshit and not proven.

at some point you dont get stronger no more.you think coleman got stronger in his last couple years?he didnt.

when strenght has peaked, theres other ways to grow, pre exhaust etc.

my legs grew to their best shape with relatively light squats.

yes 100% brother Galeniko..

[Donny]

I think after a point you will not be able to put more weight on the bar, you are at a still stand. Oldtimer and Galeniko i agree with. this is why i prefer volume and supersetting,tri setting .... sure i canīt train "Heavy" like straight sets but i fatigue my muscles and still get results without joint pain. another good point mentioned by oldtimer is working faster.. this is also a way to increase intensity. as a volume trainer you can still get very good results..lots of training principles to use..mix and match great thread...PUMP IT UP GUYS

[jon cole]

pump is a good feeling but can't stimulate hypertrophy.


progressive overload makes your muscle bigger, but if the overload is due to an increase of technique (bouncing cheating, arching etc) it's not valable.


i increase my bencpress by arching, the most i arched, the less my pecs grow
i do y bench press now with my feet on the bench my body is totally flat, no bouncing no arching no cheating, my pecs are bigger than ever.

[Henda]

I dont understand why it has to be either or.
One of the best routines i used was the first excercise done heavy for about 15 to 25 TOTAL reps in 3 - 5 sets working towards constant strength gains. And the second excercise done lighter for 4 to 5 sets with higher reps and very little rest, with less empthasis on gaining strength.

Covers both types of hypertrophy.

[prizm]

I dont understand why it has to be either or.
One of the best routines i used was the first excercise done heavy for about 15 to 25 TOTAL reps in 3 - 5 sets working towards constant strength gains. And the second excercise done lighter for 4 to 5 sets with higher reps and very little rest, with less empthasis on gaining strength.

Covers both types of hypertrophy.

because bodybuilders are all or nothing..there is no middle ground

[ukjeff]

I have always found the muscle groups that I get the best pump in are generally my better bodyparts.
Must be something in pump workouts.

[dj181]

I have always found the muscle groups that I get the best pump in are generally my better bodyparts.
Must be something in pump workouts.

so you must get a real shit pump in your arms then

J/K man! you are my fav new poster btw

[ukjeff]

so you must get a real shit pump in your arms then  

J/K man! you are my fav new poster btw

Not sure if serious, but thanks anyway.  

18 1/4 inch arms shit, then I will take that on the chin

[Donny]

volume and pump is the way to go... you feel it in the muscle(S)-- you feel like fucking king kong. NO way you will feel this with one or two sets. In my opinion the body is designed to work hard..yes and more. look at a Zulu warrior..ran 100 miles and still fought. (Rogues Drift). The idea of doing such short training never appealed to me or training to absolute failure. Each person can feel when itīs enough.