Lifts to size correalation

[jbryand101b]

They're not set in stone, but general rule of thumb standards. They are for 1RM, other than the 15 rep squats that you supposedly should do for your own weight.

I disagree with your statement 3-5 reps is not the optimal way to maximize hypertrophy; it very well could be. I think the weight on the bar accounts for how much hypertrophy will be gained.

How much hypertrophy would you gain while eating in a caloric deficit and performing 10-15 reps with just the bar?

Okay, I'll go get you some data, journal of strength and conditioning is full of it.

Also with the calorie/rep thing, lets not get silly and play the "well, what if you" game.
I'm going to neg some one red, I can feel it.

[kingk0ng]

Arnold explains the hypertrophic rep range well. In his book, he says that your initial fibers recruited by the brain are being used to move the weight and as they become more fatigued, the brain will start recruiting more and more muscle fibers. And according to what part of the body you are training, a certain rep range "to failure" applies to maximize hypertrophy. For upper body ~ 8-12, for lower body ~ 10-15. There is another way to figure it out as well - 75% of your 1RM, taken to failure. In addition,

Those rep ranges are not set in stone. Dr. Squat "Fred Hatfield" recommends you calculate your % of fiber makeups to determine which specific rep range would be better.

Arnolds recommendation sounds like he assumes everyone has the exact same genetic makeup of fiber types. Some people have more fast twitch than slow twitch in a lot of different areas.

This is the same Arnold that thinks close grip benches stimulate the "inner chest" while wide grip stimulates the "outter chest".

Arnold also recommends going heavier than that on certain exercises, especially the power exercises such as bench and squats from time to time. These ideal rep ranges are generally what it takes to fatique all of the muscle fibers in that group

Bench presses are not "power exercises" and neither are squats.

Olympic lifts are power exercises.

Power is work per unit of time.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest form and is stimulates better with low reps.

[TheHardOne]

Let the penis measuring contest begin! haha

Arnold was great in his time, he has some great facts, but not everything Arnold said was a fact.

[fueledpassion]

Those rep ranges are not set in stone. Dr. Squat "Fred Hatfield" recommends you calculate your % of fiber makeups to determine which specific rep range would be better.

Arnolds recommendation sounds like he assumes everyone has the exact same genetic makeup of fiber types. Some people have more fast twitch than slow twitch in a lot of different areas.

This is the same Arnold that thinks close grip benches stimulate the "inner chest" while wide grip stimulates the "outter chest".



Bench presses are not "power exercises" and neither are squats.

Olympic lifts are power exercises.

Power is work per unit of time.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest form and is stimulates better with low reps.

First of all, no one said anything about "being set in stone". It's a general rule of thumb that, while doing his research over the years, Arnold had found it to be the optimal weight and rep range for maximum growth. I think everyone on here can agree that eventually, regardless of your style or technique, things will have to be changed up to continue to see hypertrophy from working out.

This is muscle and body science. Nothing is for sure. This is the one area that humans know least about. It is likely that a large portion of everything you say on here will one day be turned around and proved to be inaccurate, at least in certain scenarios. But still, I find it interesting that you challenge a hall of fame bodybuilder's experiences. And btw, Jay Cutler also believes close-grip works inner chest muscles. I'm not sure about what point you are getting at but who gives a crap. A pro bodybuilder and a hall-of-famer doesn't need your input on how he did it all wrong.

3-5 reps doesn't tear my muscles to any great degree. Maybe it does for someone who is all natty and gets tired after a few sets...I dont know. 3-5 reps helps my CNS development to lift more, but it hasn't been effective at building muscle mass for me. So regardless of how true your statement is about lower reps building muscle, it doesn't hold true in my case.

You're a smarta$% too and someone needs to tell you that. I took Physics for engineers last semester and could probably work calculus circles around 98% of the people I come in contact with...you might be one of those too. So I know what W is.

In fact, I'm gonna leave and just go back to the Anabolics section where I belong. Too many people with a stick up their butts around here...

[CrazyBassGuy]

Let the penis measuring contest begin! haha

Arnold was great in his time, he has some great facts, but not everything Arnold said was a fact.

I have a massive penis - but to date it has done nothing to help me get big arms and a huge squat

[TheHardOne]

First of all, no one said anything about "being set in stone". It's a general rule of thumb that, while doing his research over the years, Arnold had found it to be the optimal weight and rep range for maximum growth. I think everyone on here can agree that eventually, regardless of your style or technique, things will have to be changed up to continue to see hypertrophy from working out.

This is muscle and body science. Nothing is for sure. This is the one area that humans know least about. It is likely that a large portion of everything you say on here will one day be turned around and proved to be inaccurate, at least in certain scenarios. But still, I find it interesting that you challenge a hall of fame bodybuilder's experiences. And btw, Jay Cutler also believes close-grip works inner chest muscles. I'm not sure about what point you are getting at but who gives a crap. A pro bodybuilder and a hall-of-famer doesn't need your input on how he did it all wrong.

3-5 reps doesn't tear my muscles to any great degree. Maybe it does for someone who is all natty and gets tired after a few sets...I dont know. 3-5 reps helps my CNS development to lift more, but it hasn't been effective at building muscle mass for me. So regardless of how true your statement is about lower reps building muscle, it doesn't hold true in my case.

You're a smarta$% too and someone needs to tell you that. I took Physics for engineers last semester and could probably work calculus circles around 98% of the people I come in contact with...you might be one of those too. So I know what W is.

Lets keep this positive fellas haha

Though I must say....I don't know anyone who uses 3-5 reps that has development like a bodybuilder. If their is please show me KingK0ng, actually doesn't Coach Christian T over at Tnation use more of a myofbrillar hypertrophy protocol using 3-5 reps on every exercise? I may be wrong.

[TheHardOne]

I have a massive penis - but to date it has done nothing to help me get big arms and a huge squat

Pics or its bull****

lol jk

[kingk0ng]

This is muscle and body science. Nothing is for sure. This is the one area that humans know least about. It is likely that a large portion of everything you say on here will one day be turned around and proved to be inaccurate, at least in certain scenarios. But still, I find it interesting that you challenge a hall of fame bodybuilder's experiences. And btw, Jay Cutler also believes close-grip works inner chest muscles. I'm not sure about what point you are getting at but who gives a crap. A pro bodybuilder and a hall-of-famer doesn't need your input on how he did it all wrong.

Then Jay Cutler needs to do some research too.

There IS no "inner chest muscle". The chest and any one muscle at that is like a rubber band... a nonexistent muscle does not contract. You work the whole chest or no chest. There's no "isolation of fibers". The all or none principle proves this wrong.

I don't care what they say. Their accomplishements in bodybuilder does not make them above physiology.

3-5 reps doesn't tear my muscles to any great degree. Maybe it does for someone who is all natty and gets tired after a few sets...I dont know. 3-5 reps helps my CNS development to lift more, but it hasn't been effective at building muscle mass for me. So regardless of how true your statement is about lower reps building muscle, it doesn't hold true in my case.

Your case? So you're suddenly different then every other human being that has walked this earth? How do you know 3-5 reps doesn't "tear" your muscles.

Do you even know how hypertrophy is stimulated? What's the difference in 5x5 and 3x10. 5 reps? You're saying that extra 5 reps is going to determine whether someone gets big or not? That's pathetic.

As long as contraction and recovery occurs, muscular hypertrophy is the result. It does not matter what rep range was used.

You're a smarta$% too and someone needs to tell you that. I took Physics for engineers last semester and could probably work calculus circles around 98% of the people I come in contact with...you might be one of those too. So I know what W is.

LOL...

I have a bachelors of science in nursing, two personal training certificates, certified strength and conditioning specialist, as well as 2 semesters of exercise physiology. I dont' care what "physics" you took. Physiology cannot be argued.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest form of hypertrophy.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is mainly fluid. (Higher rep training).

I'm not a smart ass. I just back up what I say. I'm sorry you can't do the same. Go read some more physics books and work your inner chest or whatever.

In fact, I'm gonna leave and just go back to the Anabolics section where I belong. Too many people with a stick up their butts around here...

Right. Exactly where you need to be. In the steroid section where your friends Arnold and Jay was their entire prime.

[kingk0ng]

Okay, I'll go get you some data, journal of strength and conditioning is full of it.

Also with the calorie/rep thing, lets not get silly and play the "well, what if you" game.
I'm going to neg some one red, I can feel it.

Feel free to reply to what I said. I said absolutely nothing that should of offended you.

You can neg me all day long. That doesn't bother me. Either throw up or put up.

[0071982WC]

The guidelines to whereas someone "should be" lifting are as follows.

Squat: Weight x's 2
Deadlift: Weight x's 2.5
Bench Press: Weight x's 1.5
Strict Press: Weight x's 1
Power Clean: Weight x's 1.5
Rep Squats: Rep your body weight 15 times
Front Squat: Weight x's 1
Snatch: Weight x's 1

No where near theses numbers....... Damn I must be weak! Oh well, as long as I look like I can lift those numbers.

[kingk0ng]

No where near theses numbers....... Damn I must be weak! Oh well, as long as I look like I can lift those numbers.

I never said anyone was weak if they could not meet those numbers. Those are general guidelines throughout powerlifting. I am surprised most of you have never heard of them.

[fueledpassion]

Then Jay Cutler needs to do some research too.

There IS no "inner chest muscle". The chest and any one muscle at that is like a rubber band... a nonexistent muscle does not contract. You work the whole chest or no chest. There's no "isolation of fibers". The all or none principle proves this wrong.

I don't care what they say. Their accomplishements in bodybuilder does not make them above physiology.



Your case? So you're suddenly different then every other human being that has walked this earth? How do you know 3-5 reps doesn't "tear" your muscles.

Do you even know how hypertrophy is stimulated? What's the difference in 5x5 and 3x10. 5 reps? You're saying that extra 5 reps is going to determine whether someone gets big or not? That's pathetic.

As long as contraction and recovery occurs, muscular hypertrophy is the result. It does not matter what rep range was used.



LOL...

I have a bachelors of science in nursing, two personal training certificates, certified strength and conditioning specialist, as well as 2 semesters of exercise physiology. I dont' care what "physics" you took. Physiology cannot be argued.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest form of hypertrophy.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is mainly fluid. (Higher rep training).

I'm not a smart ass. I just back up what I say. I'm sorry you can't do the same. Go read some more physics books and work your inner chest or whatever.



Right. Exactly where you need to be. In the steroid section where your friends Arnold and Jay was their entire prime.

I think you need to clarify intensity levels before you go spouting off about low rep ranges really creating hypertrophy. 5X5 training is not a good supporting example of your argument since you've been talking about 3-5 reps but have not mentioned at all the pace and time in between sets. 5x5 is superset training and essentially makes 1 10 rep exercise out of two 5 rep exercises. Not to mention the 1 minute break in between each set which would have everything to do with muscle fatigue. But doing just 3 to 4 sets of 5 reps with a 2-3 minute break in between each set hasn't done crap for my in the past and I suspect it wont do anything for me in the future other than increase my CNS development.

Let's not forget it was you that was the prideful one from the beginning so I feel it's definitely necessary that you defend yourself with credentials. Thank you for that. I have taken enough courses to know what Work is and I'm defending my credentials as well. I didn't come on here saying that I knew more than you. You came on here talking to me like I am uneducated. You came on here arguing against common knowledge about effective muscle building, which typically starts around 6 reps and goes up to 12-15 reps depending on the body part/type. Thanks for the info about the chest fibers, that was helpful but I feel you still missed my point. Did the fact that Arnold didn't have multiple degrees in the field and the fact that he didn't understand the chest fibers properly really keep him from having success building his physique? It didn't!

He also mentions that his chest was a lagging muscle group at the beginning of his training, yet at the end of his training he could stand a cup on his upper chest. BTW, I have yet to read where he talked about inner chest development but I do know that Cutler made a statement about it some time ago.

Yeah I can back up my claims but do I need to? Really? Do I have to go find the thousands of references regarding ideal rep ranges to experience the most effective hypertrophy? 8-12 rep range is common practice in fitness for mass building. 3-5 is not however. The other things I have said I did reference, they were individuals (Arnold and Jay). Otherwise the rest of my statements were merely comments like you being a smart aleck. I didnt think I needed to reference my own experiences and opinions...

[kingk0ng]

I think you need to clarify intensity levels before you go spouting off about low rep ranges really creating hypertrophy. 5X5 training is not a good supporting example of your argument since you've been talking about 3-5 reps but have not mentioned at all the pace and time in between sets. 5x5 is superset training and essentially makes 1 10 rep exercise out of two 5 rep exercises. Not to mention the 1 minute break in between each set which would have everything to do with muscle fatigue. But doing just 3 to 4 sets of 5 reps with a 2-3 minute break in between each set hasn't done crap for my in the past and I suspect it wont do anything for me in the future other than increase my CNS development.

You're usually vocabulary and you don't know the meaning. Intensity means % of 1RM.

3-5 reps IS 5X5. I used 5X5 as an example of total volume, which wasn't mentioned in this theory you posted.

Muscle fatigue is not the goal for muscular hypertrophy development. Progressive overload is the goal for muscular hypertrophy development. Your goal is to present the muscle with new tension each workout. You can do this through

-increased weight
-increased volume
-increased exercises
-increased tempo

As long as contraction and recovery occurs, muscular hypertrophy can develop.

Let's not forget it was you that was the prideful one from the beginning so I feel it's definitely necessary that you defend yourself with credentials. Thank you for that. I have taken enough courses to know what Work is and I'm defending my credentials as well. I didn't come on here saying that I knew more than you. You came on here talking to me like I am uneducated. You came on here arguing against common knowledge about effective muscle building, which typically starts around 6 reps and goes up to 12-15 reps depending on the body part/type. Thanks for the info about the chest fibers, that was helpful but I feel you still missed my point. Did the fact that Arnold didn't have multiple degrees in the field and the fact that he didn't understand the chest fibers properly really keep him from having success building his physique? It didn't!

Effective muscle building starts at 6 reps? Hm, so the LBM gained on Bill Starrs 5X5, Mark Rippetoes Starting Strength routine, The Texas Method, and Westside are all flawed? How did their LBM gain?

So if I perform 5X5, I won't gain muscle, but if I perform 5X6, I will? Do you see know how ridiculous that sounds?

Arnold has success in the field because of his genetics, hard work in the gym, and anabolics. Even though his understanding of the human body is flawed, he still knew to bench press, squat, deadlift, and trained with full body routines.

He also mentions that his chest was a lagging muscle group at the beginning of his training, yet at the end of his training he could stand a cup on his upper chest. BTW, I have yet to read where he talked about inner chest development but I do know that Cutler made a statement about it some time ago.

There's no such thing as inner chest development. The pectoralis major is one muscle. A muscle contracts at a whole. One side of the muscle contracts, the other side contracts.

Upper chest development is depended a lot on the two heads of the pectoralis major: clavicular head and sternal head.

The clavicular head is near the clavicle and incline presses stimulated them to a better degree than flat presses. However, you still cannot isolate the nonexistent inner chest.

Yeah I can back up my claims but do I need to? Really? Do I have to go find the thousands of references regarding ideal rep ranges to experience the most effective hypertrophy? 8-12 rep range is common practice in fitness for mass building. 3-5 is not however. The other things I have said I did reference, they were individuals (Arnold and Jay). Otherwise the rest of my statements were merely comments like you being a smart aleck. I didnt think I needed to reference my own experiences and opinions...

[/quote]

Rep range once again does not determine hypertrophy. Hypertrophy is gained with starting strength, but it is a lower rep program. The same thing with Starrs 5X5. Have you seen the legs on westside users? Their legs come from massive intensity (weight) low rep squats.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is best with low reps. Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest form of hypertrophy.

The 8-12 rep variable places muscles under longer TUT and TUT is only one variable to hypertrophy. TUT is not the most important variable for hypertrophy; recovery is.

You gain strength and you gain weight. What happens? You gain muscle.

I stuck with a low rep training routine for 7 months. My bench press jumped from 320lbs to 355lbs during this time period. My body weight increased from 205 to 215lbs and my bodyfat remained the same. What happened there? This was using Jim Wendlers 5/3/1.

[kingk0ng]

I also forgot to add: how do I know to what degree my fibers tore? How about the searing pain and soreness the next 48 hours. No, it's not lactic acid that causes the pain the next day but you already know this. It's the torn muscle fibers. Lifting heavy for fewer reps doesn't do this for me. Going a bit lighter, having stricter form, and lifting enough reps to get bloodflow into the muscles does seem to cause growth for me however.

You might want to do more research. Lactic acid buildup is the cause of immediate onset muscle soreness, which is the burn in high rep training.

The soreness you're speaking of is delayed onset muscle soreness, which is the soreness 24 hours later.

Scientists have never discovered why your body is sore the next day. The tears you are speaking of is only a theory.

The most widely accepted theory is the eccentric phase to the lift. Eccentric refers to the phase of the lift in which the muscle is lengthening and moving with gravity (i.e. the down-phase to the bench press).

It is not discovered what causes this.

I can do reps with the bar all day long and get sore the next day, but nothing productive will come out of it.

If you can prove that lifting 275 X 3 reps causes equal or greater amounts of bloodflow and fatigue to my muscles as 225 X 8-10 reps, I might consider what you are saying to be legitimate information. Prove it.

The goal is not to fatigue muscles; it is to overload them.

If you benched 275 x 2 last workout, then benched 275 x 3 this workout, you have officially overloaded the muscle.

Both rep ranges can adequately build hypertrophy provided contraction and recovery has occurred.

[fueledpassion]

10-4. I'll shut up. Perhaps you are right.

I expect my instructors to cover this topic when I attempt to get my training degree.

You were arguing for progressive overload this whole time and not rep ranges?

Of course I agree that each workout needs to have progressive overload, but I just thought the ideal range (which has been a great success to me) is to stick with whatever I can do 8-15 reps. But as for each workout, I try to go heavier than the last. i agree completely on that.

[kingk0ng]

10-4. I'll shut up. Perhaps you are right.

I expect my instructors to cover this topic when I attempt to get my training degree.

It takes a man to admit another man is right.

I applaud you for your respectful response.

Reps.

If you have any questions during your quest for your degree, I'll gladly help.

[TheHardOne]

I would like to see some bodybuilders or anyone in general that has a good amount of hypertrophy using 3-5 reps as his typical rep range. Drug talks aside of course.

[TheHardOne]

I would like to see some bodybuilders or anyone in general that has a good amount of hypertrophy using 3-5 reps as his typical rep range. Drug talks aside of course.

I mean i'd love to train with 3-5 reps, its just its never worked for me in the past even with my nutrition/supps being on point, and it always resulted in some kind of tendonitis of some sort, and have yet seen any great physiques built on 3-5 reps as their typical rep range. Though correct me if im wrong, Christian T over at Tnation typically uses low reps for his hypertrophy training? Even though myofibrillar hypertrophy has been shown to be best around 3-5 reps, reality has shown for most people it just gives them injuries and more so strength gains via strengthening CNS/connective tissue. My point is just I want to get inspired via seeing others develop muscular physique using low reps for hypertrophy, just really haven't seen it yet...

[jbryand101b]

Bench presses are not "power exercises" and neither are squats.

Olympic lifts are power exercises.

Power is work per unit of time.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest form and is stimulates better with low reps.

power= force * distance/time

work= force * distance

bench press power exercise: bench throws, as well as clap push ups.

squat power exercise: jump squat

olympic lifts are power exercises as well.

[JudoJosh]

power= force * distance/time

Also

Power = Force x Velocity

Power = Strength x Speed