sounds like a kickass routine, that TUT makes all the difference in the world! I like thinking of that with negatives, like you get someone to spot and unrack the weight plus help you raise it back up and you put 20-50 more lbs then your 1RM and you do that 2-3sets of 4-6 or until you cant lkeep it under tension longer then 3 seconds without dropping it right away.. that will STACK that deep muscle tissue on you and raise your !RM by 10lbs at the least every week to every other week depending on how fast your CNS can recover, cause those heavy negatives put some massive work on your CNS
Yes I am in here now KilaCali . I read through most of the thread and after great debate I have decided : go to the gym. Load up the bar. Look at it for 2 mins 18 secs. Unload the bar. Go home. = Phenomenal Hypertrophy !!!!!!
Yes I am in here now KilaCali . I read through most of the thread and after great debate I have decided : go to the gym. Load up the bar. Look at it for 2 mins 18 secs. Unload the bar. Go home. = Phenomenal Hypertrophy !!!!!!
More volume is better for hypertrophy. The question is, how do I achieve more volume? The short term answer is high rep ranges (easier to do 10 sets of 10 reps than 100 sets of your 1RM). The long term answer is if you periodize your training you can "get stronger" which will allow you to lift more weight for any given number of sets/reps, and thus achieve more volume with the same number of reps/sets.
So overnight: high reps
Long term: smart periodized training, injury prevention, etc.
I understand what you are saying but felt the need to point out that whilst these scenarios have the same volume (reps x sets) they would have different volume loads (reps x sets x load) because someone working with lower reps would be lifting a heavier weight.
In the powerlifting vs bodybuilding training study I posted earlier in the thread to equate volume loads they had to have a rep discrepancy between the two training protocols.
3 x 10 (30 reps)
7 x 3 (21 reps)
The volume loads was similar despite the second group completing only around two thirds of the rep total.
I know you were just using an easy example but I thought I would add to it in case anyone read it and misinterpreted.
I was talking to my trainer about this today and he said about 70 reps per muscle group in total is a good goal to aim for. Too much or too less is not ideal for muscles to be stimulated. 70 QUALITY reps though. and most routines would divide this into 3-4 sets.
the latest series from Erick Helms is saying also that 40-70 is enough for muscle growth? for natural athletes though. so its not as random as it sounds. I suppose the point he was trying to teach me is that more is not always better.
His figures are largely influenced by a meta analysis by Wernbom in 2007. Although newer data expands on this a lot, I still think it can make a good starting point.
Yes I am in here now KilaCali . I read through most of the thread and after great debate I have decided : go to the gym. Load up the bar. Look at it for 2 mins 18 secs. Unload the bar. Go home. = Phenomenal Hypertrophy !!!!!!
HAHAHA! Yesssss, you just pretty much told a lot of guys what they wanted to hear, you forgot one thing though.. pull out your cell phone, start texting, maybe make a few calls well you block half the weights and talk really loud lol
I understand what you are saying but felt the need to point out that whilst these scenarios have the same volume (reps x sets) they would have different volume loads (reps x sets x load) because someone working with lower reps would be lifting a heavier weight.
In the powerlifting vs bodybuilding training study I posted earlier in the thread to equate volume loads they had to have a rep discrepancy between the two training protocols.
3 x 10 (30 reps)
7 x 3 (21 reps)
The volume loads was similar despite the second group completing only around two thirds of the rep total.
I know you were just using an easy example but I thought I would add to it in case anyone read it and misinterpreted.
A video summary I did for anyone who doesn't want to read the full text:
Eric is a great mind.
His figures are largely influenced by a meta analysis by Wernbom in 2007. Although newer data expands on this a lot, I still think it can make a good starting point.
As in the study, volume is the biggest determinant of growth. Strength oriented training will produce more adaptations that improve... uh strength. The question is, is it easier to do 3x10 (10 rep max weight) or 7 sets of your 3 rep max? I think we'll all agree that the former is "easier" and would take less time to complete. Thus, if you don't care about strength, it would seem that it's more convenient to just lift in the higher rep ranges. That would also mean less chance of an injury down the road.
But then we need to look at the long term. If guy "a" just lifts in hypertrophy ranges for years, while guy b does 70% hypertrophy and 30% strength, chances are guy b will experience slower growth at first, but a year later, when he can now bench 275 and guy a is still at 225, guy b can train in the 10RM range with more weight, and thus can either do less sets (and have the same volume and mass gains) or train the same number of sets (thus having more volume in the same amount of sets/reps). As you can see, now guy b essentially can complete more volume than guy a, so it's easier for him to grow.
Guy b is sacrificing the short term for the long term. Presumably, he'll catch up to guy a sooner than latter, and when he does he'll be able to overtake, because he had "room to grow", he has more options.
Not necessarily. Crudely put, guy A will likely still be stronger in the higher (10rm) rep range than guy B, simply because thats where he has focused his progression.
Again, there will be some strength carryover across rep ranges, but really the most efficient way to increase your Xrep range is to train for just that. Especially if your comparing a low rep range (which involves very little intra set fatigue, but high tension) to a high rep range (which involves a greater degree of fatigue).
Classic example of this is Platz vs Hatfield (already mentioned in thread).
Perhaps at beginner through to intermediate stages of development load periodization may prove beneficial for hypertrophy, but the more advanced one gets the more they will likely need to specialize in order to eek out those tiny gains and minimize unwanted fibre conversion. I imagine Coleman could be thrown up as an example against this, but who knows how different (if at all) he may have looked foregoing the low rep work.
Amazing we know as much as we do about how the human body operates. I am always impressed with this site. I have learned more useful information in three years than all the previous decades combined.
Amazing we know as much as we do about how the human body operates. I am always impressed with this site. I have learned more useful information in three years than all the previous decades combined.
Although hypertrophy can be achieved across a wide spectrum of repetitions per set, exclusively picking low ranges requires a significantly higher number of sets to achieve equal volume (and therefore takes a lot of time) and exclusively picking higher repetitions takes longer to achieve the same result.
Therefore, if only picking one range, the standard hypertrophy rep range of 8-12 is still a decent rule of thumb for most people, in most instances.
Although hypertrophy can be achieved across a wide spectrum of repetitions per set, exclusively picking low ranges requires a significantly higher number of sets to achieve equal volume (and therefore takes a lot of time) and exclusively picking higher repetitions takes longer to achieve the same result.
Therefore, if only picking one range, the standard hypertrophy rep range of 8-12 is still a decent rule of thumb for most people, in most instances.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
