x percent increase in weight reduces rep numbers by more than x percent

[Rami]

So there really must be a spot of sweetness on how we should do reps and work out.

This nonlinear equation proves it.

[Waller]

X percent increase in shit threads reduces getbig enjoyment by X percent.

[Hulkotron]

2 reps for power
6 reps for strength
8 reps for mass
12 reps for cuts
20 reps for tone but careful not to overtrain

Also be sure to "rip the bar apart" and hit the muscle from "all angles" oh brother.

Thanks and good luck.

[Rami]

12 minimum for mass, but exactly is still unknown, probably around 16.

8 sounds like an excuse.

[_aj_]

9 reps only causes muscle "confusion".

Avoid 9 reps.

[Rami]

for mind muscle connection I think is 50 or more reps is needed. I have gotten this with 70 or there about reps squat.

great mind muscle connection.

[Waller]

This is a local 'PT' so it must be true.



So no more than 60 reps in a 48 hour period. That's some confusion gone!

[_aj_]

This is a local 'PT' so it must be true.



So no more than 60 reps in a 48 hour period. That's some confusion gone!

Hmm, I did a 100 pullups a day for a week workout once. It was "supplemental". Every time I though about it, I should go bang out another 10. I actually did it for 7 days. Kinda boring.

Muscle gained? Zero.

This "PT" might be onto something.

[Waller]

Hmm, I did a 100 pullups a day for a week workout once. It was "supplemental". Every time I though about it, I should go bang out another 10. I actually did it for 7 days. Kinda boring.

Muscle gained? Zero.

This "PT" might be onto something.

Try 60 every 2 days for a week, but be sure no single set exceeds 15 reps. We'll be calling you Dorian after that.

[Novena]

This effect is called reciprocal failure. 

[Rami]

this is no good, and it's bad advice

This is a local 'PT' so it must be true.



So no more than 60 reps in a 48 hour period. That's some confusion gone!

[falco]

So there really must be a spot of sweetness on how we should do reps and work out.

This nonlinear equation proves it.

    It's not a simple mathematical equation. It has a lot to do with type of muscle fibers within the several muscles recruted during motion. That alone varies from individual to individual. So many variables you will never get exact numbers.
    I tried that approach when younger. Never got any reliable data. Just focus on lift things up and put them down.

[Waller]

   It's not a simple mathematical equation. It has a lot to do with type of muscle fibers within the several muscles recruted during motion. That alone varies from individual to individual. So many variables you will never get exact numbers.
    I tried that approach when younger. Never got any reliable data. Just focus on lift things up and put them down.

No no no. You're wrong. No matter who you are, what you're on, what you train, the numbers don't lie. There are set universal numbers for specific results.

This instinctive training bullshit is a fallacy perpetrated by Dorian to reduce efficiency of up and coming competitors training.

[_aj_]

No no no. You're wrong. No matter who you are, what you're on, what you train, the numbers don't lie. There are set universal numbers for specific results.

This instinctive training bullshit is a fallacy perpetrated by Dorian to reduce efficiency of up and coming competitors training.

Spot on!

[Novena]

two words...Linear Programming

[BigCyp]

Not if weight = fat on a white woman, and reps = BMC'S pelvic thrusts

[Hulkotron]

One must have a good handle on applied mathematics to be a real bodybuilder.