Best Routine For Mass??

[JKurz1]

What the hell are you talking about???? 5 sets of HEAVY 4-6 reps....rest a few minutes......5 sets of a good weight for 8-10 on incline.....rest....

Than a lighter 15-20 on decline...........balls out dude......


If thats rough, you'd never make the true 5x5 program that many subscribe by....5 sets of squats, 5 sets of bench, 5 sets of rows...3x a week.......

 

[guyfromkop2]

What the hell are you talking about???? 5 sets of HEAVY 4-6 reps....rest a few minutes......5 sets of a good weight for 8-10 on incline.....rest....

Than a lighter 15-20 on decline...........balls out dude......


If thats rough, you'd never make the true 5x5 program that many subscribe by....5 sets of squats, 5 sets of bench, 5 sets of rows...3x a week.......

the routine i do now is plenty tough, some of the top plers in the world follow pretty much the same basic layout as i do. i was just saying that's a lot of volume. but then again i'm a pler and i'm assuming you're a bber, 2 completely different goals.

 

[alexandr0s]

I agree with bobo for the most part, but if anyone even cares what I have to say, here it is:

I disagree that HIT will improve strength as compared relatively to other routines. From what I understand HIT involves infrequent training and emphasis on TUT. This would for the most part induce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy--enhancing endurance rather than strength. I am probably wrong. But along the same lines with what bobo said, I think that the best routines that have ever been created involve all kinds of rep ranges, rest periods, and variations TUT. Constantly using the same rep ranges, rest periods or TUT would initially force adaptation and as a result would seemingly improve your physique, however, it would become less and less productive as your body becomes more and more used to the exercise and parameters. It might be a good idea to emphasize TUT with higher rep ranges on one day, practice explosive training on another, change rest periods up, etc. Variation is the best "routine" for mass. this is probably old news for most. peace

 

[phil216]

You are correct that HIT does involve infrequent training but my strength has been increasing each and every workout withot fail thus far and that is obviously a sign that a positive change has taken place. At the current time I'm in the gym once every seven days or so and I do a total of 2 sets per workout which are done to total failure. I have 2 workouts that I do (workout A and workout B I guess is what you could call them). Workout A is 1 set of deads and 1 set of dips or incline press, Workout B is 1 set of squats and 1 set of close grip palms up pull downs. Each set is carried to total failure and the results have been great. To get bigger and and stronger you must train as hard as posible, and if you are going to train that way it must be brief and infrequent or it will consititute overtraining.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You are correct that HIT does involve infrequent training but my strength has been increasing each and every workout withot fail thus far and that is obviously a sign that a positive change has taken place. At the current time I'm in the gym once every seven days or so and I do a total of 2 sets per workout which are done to total failure. I have 2 workouts that I do (workout A and workout B I guess is what you could call them). Workout A is 1 set of deads and 1 set of dips or incline press, Workout B is 1 set of squats and 1 set of close grip palms up pull downs. Each set is carried to total failure and the results have been great. To get bigger and and stronger you must train as hard as posible, and if you are going to train that way it must be brief and infrequent or it will consititute overtraining.

Phil, not to be a dick, but I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this thread. You keep focusing in on the strength aspect of HIT as your argument for it inducing maximum hypertrophy. I started this to just see what everyone's opinion was on the routine, however variated once started, and coupled with a bulk diet that induced the maximum amount of hypertrophy.

 

[alexandr0s]

infrequent training will probably give less gains in the long term. cashing yourself out like that is pointless. your body was not made to be used once a week.

 

[phil216]

infrequent training will probably give less gains in the long term. cashing yourself out like that is pointless. your body was not made to be used once a week.

Muscular growth is stimulatd through intense exercise, and if the exercise is intense it MUST be infrequest and of a low volume otherwise it will result in overtraining. Recovery or compensation from the exhaustive a workout take time and then only after you have recovered or compensated and you over-compensate or grow.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I don't where you are getting this but it is completely false as a generalized statement. In many cases intense, frequent sessions show optimal results in terms of muscular hypertrophy, especially with isometric training, and there also numerous studies showing no difference between 3 sessions per week to one session a week in both strenght AND hypertrophy. Making generalized statements without even considering several training variables (muscle action duration, number of muscle actions, fiber type) shows a complete lacking of research in this area.

 

[phil216]

To state that there is not difference between training 3 times per week and 1 time per week actually shows that HIT is better due to the fact that you are getting the same results without having to waste as much time in the gym. Beyond that you must admit that as you grow stronger and lift progressivly heavier weights you are increasing the stress that you ae putting on your body and to compensate for the increased stress you need more time to recover.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I agree with bobo for the most part, but if anyone even cares what I have to say, here it is:

I disagree that HIT will improve strength as compared relatively to other routines. From what I understand HIT involves infrequent training and emphasis on TUT. This would for the most part induce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy--enhancing endurance rather than strength. I am probably wrong.

TUT is simply Time Under Tension. Whether you concentrate on sarcoplasmic of myfibullar hypertrophy depends on how MUCH time. Saying TUT enchances sarcoplasmic hpyertrophy simple doens't make sense without stating rep times or ratios.

Having said that there are numerous studies in the last 20 years show very short CON action prolonged with increased ECC action can have a very positive effect on strength as long as overall volume is kept in check.

 

[phil216]

Do not take what I'm writting the wrong way I mean no disrespect Bobo I just happen to respectfully disagree.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

To state that there is not difference between training 3 times per week and 1 time per week actually shows that HIT is better due to the fact that you are getting the same results without having to waste as much time in the gym. Beyond that you must admit that as you grow stronger and lift progressivly heavier weights you are increasing the stress that you ae putting on your body and to compensate for the increased stress you need more time to recover.

Actually no it isn't because as I have stated the results are different depending on several training variables in which you haven't even acknowledged. When it comes to strenght most studies indicate higher frequency to be better (Faigenbaum and Pollock 1997). In terms of hypertrophy less frequency with increase ECC time and microtrauma is better (Hamlin and Quigley 2001). These are variables in whivh you don't even mention which shows a very large misunderstanding of human physiology.

You simply state low volume, HIT exercise is the best and you are simply wrong.

Lifting heavier weight and becoming stronger is more neural adaptions than anything, not hypertrophy.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

In terms of hypertrophy less frequency with increase ECC time and microtrauma is better (Hamlin and Quigley 2001). These are variables in whivh you don't even mention which shows a very large misunderstanding of human physiology.

So this and everything else about variation and diet being the key to a successfully planned program, what if any, would be the frequency minimum/maximum you would reccommend? And also, is this training frequency as in times per week a muscle is trained, or in volume-sets/reps..I ask because I was wondering if my split waaay at the front of this forum is too frequent, or too much volume in your eyes...

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Beyond that you must admit that as you grow stronger and lift progressivly heavier weights you are increasing the stress that you ae putting on your body and to compensate for the increased stress you need more time to recover.

Actually this is true and false at the same time.

Its false because you actually recover faster with heavier weights and less TUT than you would with moderate weights and increased TUT (therby inducing more microtruama). Many PL'er and OL'er type programs train 3+ times per week (same muscle groups) with extremely heavy weight.

Its also true only by factoring in age. It takes longer to recover when you are older.

 

[phil216]

Believe me I do not claim to be an expert or a guru or anythinglike that. I ave been a HIT advocate for years now and I truely believe that it is the most efective way to build mass and strength due to the fact that it is a high intensity muscular contraction that stimulates muscular growth and then once you have stimulated growth there is no reason to continue and you then need to leave the gym, recover and then grow. To site studies ine the May 1993 edition of the jornal of physiology reported that a group of men and women (age 22-32) trained their biceps in a negative only fashion toa point of muscular failure. In the experiment the subjects performed 3 negative only sets of preacher curls (the weight as raised for them) the weight was determined to be 90% of their maximum isometic force capability. Each set consisted of 5-15 such reps and a 2 minute rest was taken between sets and the weight was reduced by 10% per set. After the experiment the subjects were found to be most sore 2 days after he workout and the soreness was gone by the 9th day which mean they had not yet recovered from the workout meaning more time would be required before growth could take place. The study was conducted by the Somatic Dysfunction research laboratory of the college of ostepathic medicine and the dept. of biologoical sciences at Ohio University Athens. That is far too much typing for me haha

 

[phil216]

Word to the wise, periodontal surgery sucks. Just had my second and thank God last one at 2:00pm est today and it hurts like hell and is still bleeding. I just had to state that

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Believe me I do not claim to be an expert or a guru or anythinglike that. I ave been a HIT advocate for years now and I truely believe that it is the most efective way to build mass and strength due to the fact that it is a high intensity muscular contraction that stimulates muscular growth and then once you have stimulated growth there is no reason to continue and you then need to leave the gym, recover and then grow. To site studies ine the May 1993 edition of the jornal of physiology reported that a group of men and women (age 22-32) trained their biceps in a negative only fashion toa point of muscular failure. In the experiment the subjects performed 3 negative only sets of preacher curls (the weight as raised for them) the weight was determined to be 90% of their maximum isometic force capability. Each set consisted of 5-15 such reps and a 2 minute rest was taken between sets and the weight was reduced by 10% per set. After the experiment the subjects were found to be most sore 2 days after he workout and the soreness was gone by the 9th day which mean they had not yet recovered from the workout meaning more time would be required before growth could take place. The study was conducted by the Somatic Dysfunction research laboratory of the college of ostepathic medicine and the dept. of biologoical sciences at Ohio University Athens. That is far too much typing for me haha

And if you followed up with supporting studies you will see the adaptations after the first bout protect from successive soreness as weight training progresses. In other words, the time period decreases as weeks go on. You learn about the "window of adaptation" pretty early in an Exercise and Sports Training Program.

"Interestingly, each physiological variable will adapt on a differnt timeline (e.g. nervous system versus protein accretion in muscle) and in a specific manner related to the exact type of exercise program, thus, the term "exercise specificity". Adaptations can be obvserved after days of training to years of training (Hakkinen, Pakarinen et al 1988c: Staron et al. 1994). Eventually, each physiological function or structure will express a maximum adaptation to the training program based on the trainee's genetics"

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Believe me I do not claim to be an expert or a guru or anythinglike that. I ave been a HIT advocate for years now and I truely believe that it is the most efective way to build mass and strength due to the fact that it is a high intensity muscular contraction that stimulates muscular growth and then once you have stimulated growth there is no reason to continue and you then need to leave the gym, recover and then grow.

And you still fail to recognize as I said on the first page that the stimulus which induces optimal growth is based on the TUT of the muscle which can be achieved MANY WAYS.

The short interval between sets actually inhibits this!!!!

Amd stop using "intensity" because you are using it improperly. Intensity is the percentage of the 1RM or any RM resistance for the exercise.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Do not take what I'm writting the wrong way I mean no disrespect Bobo I just happen to respectfully disagree.

Not at all and you can disagree all you want. HIT might work the best for you due to certain factors (especially age since you are 32) but there is no one best way for everyone. Anyone who is telling you that is trying to sell you something. THere are MANY poeple in which HIT simply doens't work well for them.

I simply do not like it when people make generalized statements about what works best for everyone.

 

[phil216]

I'm not sure why you think that I'm talking about very short rest intervals, because not. I think it is fair to say that I have a very fim grasp of what "intensity" is as training to muscular failure is rather intense. In all honestly I'm not too familiar with the TUT so I can not speak to it how effective it is or is not. I just find it odd how people, you included will indicate that HIT is good for increasing strength but not size which to me does not make much sense as it is pretty obvious to me at least to get bigger you must get stronger, I mean none of us train to get weaker. Once again Bobo I mean you no disrespect and I think your a very bright guy but I guess We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. I thank you for the conversation though as it really helped me stop thinking about the pain in my mouth caused by my periodontal procedure earlier today.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I'm not sure why you think that I'm talking about very short rest intervals, because not. I think it is fair to say that I have a very fim grasp of what "intensity" is as training to muscular failure is rather intense. In all honestly I'm not too familiar with the TUT so I can not speak to it how effective it is or is not. I just find it odd how people, you included will indicate that HIT is good for increasing strength but not size which to me does not make much sense as it is pretty obvious to me at least to get bigger you must get stronger, I mean none of us train to get weaker. Once again Bobo I mean you no disrespect and I think your a very bright guy but I guess We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. I thank you for the conversation though as it really helped me stop thinking about the pain in my mouth caused by my periodontal procedure earlier today.

Phil,

I don't know if its your loyalty to HIT or your tooth that keeps you from actually reading my posts. Muscle growth is intiated by a stimulus and the type of training indicates what type of stimulus. This stimulus is based on TUT (Time Under Tension) which will then in turn determine what type of growth, OR LACK OF, that will occur. HIT AND ANY WEIGHT TRAINING PROGRAM HAS SOME SORT OF TUT FACTOR WHETHER ITS HIGH OR LOW.

Actually I don't think you understand what intensity is because when it comes to exercise and sports training intensity isn't a state of mind, its the percentage of the 1RM. Given the fact that you don't know this and have used the term incorrectly many times I find it hard to beleive that you are qualified to tell anyone what is best.

You simply don't understand some of most basic principles of human physiology and resistance training terms.

Your simple misunderstanding of "strenght=size" or vice versa is a CLEAR represenation of this. Strenght does not equal SIZE! I know pletny of small PL'ers and plenty of WEAK BB'ers.

 

[phil216]

Thanks for your understanding, periodontal surgery is a bitch(it is actually gum surgery which required bout 40 or so stiches). What I mean when I say to get bigger you must grow stronger is that for an individual to grow larger that individual must grow stronger. I also know many people that are stronger then some bigger guys but that is almost irrelevent because for those individuals to grow larger they would need to grow stronger themselves. The overwhelmling majority of people do grow stronger before they see an increase in muscular size. I'm sure that you see that with many of your clients, their weights go up and they grow larger.

 

[JKurz1]

So what have we learned from these 4 pages?????

The best method is..................

 

[phil216]

You will need to make that determination for yourself using the information available to you. As you can see there are several different schools of thought on this subject and many diferent routins that have shown to produce results. My opinion is HIT is the way to go others like TUT and GVT and still other methods

 

[Grunt76]

Well, I'mma chime in here.

To grow bigger you must, well, grow bigger. There is some correlation between strength and size. But to state that to grow bigger you must grow stronger is simply false because it implies that size depends on strength whereas experience has clearly shown that it is not the case. You can get significantly bigger without getting significantly stronger and vice-versa. Adaptation.

Just as you adapt to certain training regimen, caloric intake, and the many other factors involved in bodybuilding, you also, of course adapt to training volume and frequency. To a point, just as you will only adapt to a point to any other factor.

HIT makes the very mistaken assumption that recuperative abilities cannot adapt to increased frequency or volume. The body adapts to the stimuli you give it, and that goes for any stimulus, bar none.

Now if you use HIT, you do not train for increasing recuperative abilities, and thus, by the same token, limits your ability to grow over a certain point. Thus HIT is clearly non-optimal over the longer term although it will certainly provide good results over the short term for these very same reasons .

 

[Mulletsoldier]

So what have we learned from these 4 pages?????

The best method is..................

As well, as Bobo said, the best method is not what you begin your program with but how it is variated once started.

 

[DieTrying]

I also know many people that are stronger then some bigger guys but that is almost irrelevent because for those individuals to grow larger they would need to grow stronger themselves. The overwhelmling majority of people do grow stronger before they see an increase in muscular size. I'm sure that you see that with many of your clients, their weights go up and they grow larger.

Early on in an untrained individual you are correct (Staron, Karapondo, Kraemer, Fry 1994). However, there is a ceiling for which this occurs. Bobo is dead on. Strength training and hypertrophy training are two different activities....IMO you kinda need to decide what is important to you.

 

[alexandr0s]

by emphasis on TUT, I meant a longer TUT. I agree that the eccentric portion of the rep is just as valuable as the concentric portion. however, the eccentric portion puts more stress proportionally on the muscle fibers/nervous system if I'm correct. so it might not be a good idea to frequently use long duration TUT?

 

[alexandr0s]

Bobo: Why would short intervals inhibit maximal hypertrophy? Would the short intervals not increase glycolytic demand + lactic acid build up inducing a higher threshold for glycogen storage?

Grunt76: I'm not an expert in any right whatsoever, but I really do not agree with you. How could you possibly grow bigger without growing stronger. Volume training would increase glycolytic capacity of your muscle, but I believe there is a plateau and at that point you would be forced to increase fibers in the parallel direction before you could grow any more in the perpendicular (sarcoplasmic) direction...

 

[Dwight Schrute]

by emphasis on TUT, I meant a longer TUT. I agree that the eccentric portion of the rep is just as valuable as the concentric portion. however, the eccentric portion puts more stress proportionally on the muscle fibers/nervous system if I'm correct. so it might not be a
good idea to frequently use long duration TUT?

The eccentric actually is actually more important.

Of course it stressful.

With anything there is always risk of overtraining.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Bobo: Why would short intervals inhibit maximal hypertrophy? Would the short intervals not increase glycolytic demand + lactic acid build up inducing a higher threshold for glycogen storage?

Grunt76: I'm not an expert in any right whatsoever, but I really do not agree with you. How could you possibly grow bigger without growing stronger. Volume training would increase glycolytic capacity of your muscle, but I believe there is a plateau and at that point you would be forced to increase fibers in the parallel direction before you could grow any more in the perpendicular (sarcoplasmic) direction...

Because with increase microtrauma you need increased time between sets.

Increasing nutrient capacity is sarcoplamisc hypertrophy, not myofibullar hpyertrophy.

He's not sayint you stay the same size, he is saying the you are emphasizing more CNS stimulation in which case the neural adapations will be mostly responsible for increased strenght, not increased fiber thickness (you don't increase fibers..don't know where you got that from). Very heavy weight, very short reps, ver few of them. You aren't inducuing enough of a stimulus responsible for optinal growth therefore you gain considerable strneght withouth growing.It also works vice versa, more emphasis on increasing size with little increases in strenght. THere are pleny of large bodybuilding that aren't very strong.




Instead of people agreeing and disagreeing maybe they should understand how the body functions first befoire making statements as to what works and what is best because as they soon find out, there isn't one way.

 

[nattyHST]

im suprised no one mentioned hst.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

omg..

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The eccentric actually is actually more important.

Earlier on in the thread Bobo you had said anything over 3 seconds for the Eccentric portion would be useless in terms of myfibular hypertrophy, so if one was to vary their TUT week to week, would you vary the ratio of both the concentric and eccentric every week, or could you theoretically keep the concentric the same and very the eccentric as long as you were making progress?

 

[phil216]

I guess it is safe to say that there are not many HIT advocates on this site. With that being said what Bobo stated earlier about all training programs having a TUT aspect to them is true (See I can agree with you) but at the same time they all have intensity as the key. By that I mean if you do not progressivly increases the intensity of the effort you will not stimulate growth. For instance if you do not strive to increase either the weight being used or the reps your body will have no reason to grow as you will be staying within it's existing capabilities. Muscle growth is just an adaptive response to a form of stress.

 

[Grunt76]

I guess it is safe to say that there are not many HIT advocates on this site. With that being said what Bobo stated earlier about all training programs having a TUT aspect to them is true (See I can agree with you) but at the same time they all have intensity as the key. By that I mean if you do not progressivly increases the intensity of the effort you will not stimulate growth. For instance if you do not strive to increase either the weight being used or the reps your body will have no reason to grow as you will be staying within it's existing capabilities. Muscle growth is just an adaptive response to a form of stress.

I find it interesting that you feel the need to point out what is certainly the most basic of basis of what bodybuilding is about on a site that has quite a few people who are extremely knowledgeable about the science of bodybuilding.

 

[alexandr0s]

Because with increase microtrauma you need increased time between sets.

Increasing nutrient capacity is sarcoplamisc hypertrophy, not myofibullar hpyertrophy.

He's not sayint you stay the same size, he is saying the you are emphasizing more CNS stimulation in which case the neural adapations will be mostly responsible for increased strenght, not increased fiber thickness (you don't increase fibers..don't know where you got that from). Very heavy weight, very short reps, ver few of them. You aren't inducuing enough of a stimulus responsible for optinal growth therefore you gain considerable strneght withouth growing.It also works vice versa, more emphasis on increasing size with little increases in strenght. THere are pleny of large bodybuilding that aren't very strong.




Instead of people agreeing and disagreeing maybe they should understand how the body functions first befoire making statements as to what works and what is best because as they soon find out, there isn't one way.

I know. But regardless if he were to "just grow bigger," focusing on increasing muscular volume without increasing myofibril density he would put himself into a counter-productive environemnt. if we grow ridiculously large perpendicular proportional to parallel we lose oxidative capacity and become inefficient at nutrient delivery. I am just saying that it would bea good idea to train both for strength *and* size alternatively but emphasis on one or the othr depending on goals.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I know. But regardless if he were to "just grow bigger," focusing on increasing muscular volume without increasing myofibril density he would put himself into a counter-productive environemnt. if we grow ridiculously large perpendicular proportional to parallel we lose oxidative capacity and become inefficient at nutrient delivery. I am just saying that it would bea good idea to train both for strength *and* size alternatively but emphasis on one or the othr depending on goals.

And where did I say that it wasn't a good idea? We are pointing that its very possible to train singnificantly for one while not emphasizing the other.

And no its not couterproductive to many that train for strenght only when they are looking to compete in a certain weight class.

And are you saying that a program that empahszies both is the best way? You mean that a program based on periodiziation probably is the best way? Wow, big revelation. I've said that a million times. Well maybe not a million.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I find it interesting that you feel the need to point out what is certainly the most basic of basis of what bodybuilding is about on a site that has quite a few people who are extremely knowledgeable about the science of bodybuilding.

Its because many people feel the need to focus on details withouth ever understanding some of the most basic principles in any exercises and sports nutrition program. When they actually do learn some "basics" they find out just how ridiculous their original arguement sounds to anyone who has picked up a college textbook.

If you asked them to define what a motor unit is they wouldn't have the slightest clue. And these are the same people giving recommendations on what is "best". ITs the blind leading the blind.