training for size

[rhino67jg]

Been strength training & power training for years but arthritis in the left shoulder has put a stop to heavy lifting. Got into bodybuilding for size now. Ive had to lighten my weights but train hard & adding more reps.. 10-15, at 45sec.-1min rest periods. Is that the correct approach to take?

 

[kingk0ng]

Rep ranges don't generally determine hypertrophy.

You want size? It's something primarily depends on the kitchen.

Training each movement twice a week with high and low reps are what I have found to be generally better.

 

[B5150]

Eccentric!

 

[jbryand101b]

Rep ranges don't generally determine hypertrophy.

Yes they do buddy ol pal.

 

[jbryand101b]

And yes, dup is a better way of training if you want to take a non linear approach.

 

[B5150]

Yes they do dumb ass.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/company-promotions/198140-how-become-rep-2.html#post3318794

 

[jbryand101b]

I was joking, but fixed, in both threads.

 

[kingk0ng]

Yes they do buddy ol pal.

So if I perform a desired set of reps with the bar I'll grow? Even if I'm eating in a caloric deficit? I hope you see my point.

Contraction and recovery determine hypertrophy, not rep range. Sets aren't even taken into those discussions.

What is better? 10 reps with the bar or 5 reps with 300lbs? My point exactly.

Typical gym myths. I thought everyone knew better than that now.

 

[B5150]

I was joking, but fixed, in both threads.

No need. I just love poking you from time to time :whip:

 

[mikeg313]

No need. I just love poking you from time to time :whip:

I guess they threw out the "don't ask, don't tell" policy here as well ;-) hope you use lube!

 

[hugry4more]

So if I perform a desired set of reps with the bar I'll grow? Even if I'm eating in a caloric deficit? I hope you see my point.

Contraction and recovery determine hypertrophy, not rep range. Sets aren't even taken into those discussions.

What is better? 10 reps with the bar or 5 reps with 300lbs? My point exactly.

Typical gym myths. I thought everyone knew better than that now.

Yea but that's like saying with out sun and rain the grass can't grow. That's a given. Ur food is the bricks the supplements and tools use in the gym are the builders. What were talking about here is what is the optimal rep range for the most size. In other words what's the most efficient way to add size? Honestly I believe there is no answer. I mean there are answers but not just one. Everyone responds differently.

 

[kingk0ng]

Yea but that's like saying with out sun and rain the grass can't grow. That's a given. Ur food is the bricks the supplements and tools use in the gym are the builders. What were talking about here is what is the optimal rep range for the most size. In other words what's the most efficient way to add size? Honestly I believe there is no answer. I mean there are answers but not just one. Everyone responds differently.

I'm a firm believer that you would be better off training both high and low reps than just training one. Sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy is the goal in the end. Myofibrillar is the thickest form of hypertrophy and is stimulated better with low reps, but sarcoplasmic hypertrophy accounts for a lot of the fluids that determine the appearance of the larger muscle and is generally found to be better with high reps.

Another thing is your fiber makeups. I think if you train your strength, endurance and power fibers versus solely focusing on one or the other, you'd be better off, but on the subject to which is better the subject is void because there are a lot of people that base their philosophy on low reps and a lot that base their philosophy on high reps.

If I could do ONLY one, I'd probably do high reps as an advanced lifter and low reps as a novice.

 

[jbryand101b]

So if I perform a desired set of reps with the bar I'll grow? Even if I'm eating in a caloric deficit? I hope you see my point.

Contraction and recovery determine hypertrophy, not rep range. Sets aren't even taken into those discussions.

What is better? 10 reps with the bar or 5 reps with 300lbs? My point exactly.

Typical gym myths. I thought everyone knew better than that now.

Now you are paying the what if game, wich is lame.

What if I ran superdrol and lifted one a week while taking a low cal diet, will I grow then? Gay.

10 reps on the bar with still range of motion, and 75% of one rm, yes, if better for growth than 5 reps at 300lbs.

You claim all these certs, but you don't seem to know amy of the science taught by the nsca.

 

[jbryand101b]

Oh and your 5rm should be at approx. 87.5%.

And your one rm would be about 345lb,

So to maximize your goal of muscle hypertrophy, you would want to lift 6-12 reps @ 85-70% of your 1rm, which if it was 345, would mean your weight lifted would be
approximately 293-241.

So if 5reps @300 is something you want to do, and you want to do a non linear training scheme you could do a hypertrophy/strength day.
That will be more effective according to studies done on daily undulating periodization programs. But for hypertrophy, anyone with REAL knowledge on exercise science knows intensity and duration are key.

 

[Rodja]

Now you are paying the what if game, wich is lame.

What if I ran superdrol and lifted one a week while taking a low cal diet, will I grow then? Gay.

10 reps on the bar with still range of motion, and 75% of one rm, yes, if better for growth than 5 reps at 300lbs.

You claim all these certs, but you don't seem to know amy of the science taught by the nsca.

You should know that the crap the NSCA teaches is archaic and inefficient. There's a reason that people are dropping their NSCA certifications and that's because the organization is going to crap.

Rep ranges will be debated endlessly and there really is not an answer. My philosophy is to not limit yourself to a certain range. However, there are certain lifts that lend themselves to certain ranges. For example, doing a 20 rep set of cleans makes no damn sense.

 

[jbryand101b]

okay, maybe I should rephrase it to say the data posted in the the journal of strength & conditioning.

you can lift at w/e weight you want, for however many sets you want, for how ever many reps as you want, and you will get bigger, stronger, slower or more powerful, and more endurance.

but to optimize the performance results, I do believe there are specific training methods.

but w/e works best for you.

if you lift heavy, eat right, plenty of rest & recovery, you will grow, this is undisputable.

 

[machorox123]

These hypertrophy threads always result in a fight with namecalling of some sort.. Highly debateable topic

 

[qwerty33]

Personally a week of high weight/ low rep followed by a week of low weight/ high rep works best for me. Mostly depends on your food intake for size gain

 

[kingk0ng]

Now you are paying the what if game, wich is lame.

My point was you made a bold statement while leaving out a lot more essential variables.

Diet is going to be play the largest role. You'll grow with either high or low reps with a good diet, but without it you'll grow with neither.

Which one works better? That depends on the genetic fiber makeup. The amount of fast twitch and slow twitch fibers a person has, or at least that was Fred Hatfields input.

What if I ran superdrol and lifted one a week while taking a low cal diet, will I grow then? Gay.

Even on steroids calories are still important for growth.

10 reps on the bar with still range of motion, and 75% of one rm, yes, if better for growth than 5 reps at 300lbs.

Says who? Can you prove this?

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is better stimulated with low reps. Want some facts? Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest formof muscular hypertrophy. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with high reps are mainly fluids.

You claim all these certs, but you don't seem to know amy of the science taught by the nsca.

I haven't seen you include ANY sort of "science" in your so-called brilliant posts.

You should know that the crap the NSCA teaches is archaic and inefficient. There's a reason that people are dropping their NSCA certifications and that's because the organization is going to crap.

Exactly. There's one reason and one reason only I turned to the NSCA, and that was insurance. Now it's just a piece of paper hanging on my wall that means little to nothing.

 

[machorox123]

Says who? Can you prove this?

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is better stimulated with low reps. Want some facts? Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest formof muscular hypertrophy. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with high reps are mainly fluids.
.

This is absolutely true but only people who have a predisposition for size will have massive growth in that range such as derek poundstone.. Theres only so much yur muscles will grow training for myofibrilar hypertrophy.that is why most olympic lifters arent huge

 

[machorox123]

Which one works better? That depends on the genetic fiber makeup. The amount of fast twitch and slow twitch fibers a person has, or at least that was Fred Hatfields input.
.

Oop missed this so yu arr indeed 100% correct.. The myth that you should only train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is not correct because the size of the muscle will appear to be bigger when its really just glycogen energy and water not that theres anything wrong with that.. Size is size!!!!! For optimal growth both methods should benused

 

[kingk0ng]

This is absolutely true but only people who have a predisposition for size will have massive growth in that range such as derek poundstone.. Theres only so much yur muscles will grow training for myofibrilar hypertrophy.that is why most olympic lifters arent huge

Olympic lifters do not train for strength; they train for speed strength - explosiveness, power. The reason some Olympic lifters don't get that big are....

#1- they don't have bulking diets
#2- they compete in specific weight classes and like to stay smaller to compete in certain weight classes.

Powerlifters grow up until the start slacking training and the predominantly use low reps. Look at the people that use starting strength, 5/3/1 or Bill Starrs program.

You'd respond better if you just use BOTH high and low reps though. I'm not for one or against the other, but either could be argued.

 

[B5150]

Periodization.

 

[SXIPro]

1 rep of an African elephant per month. Nuff said.

 

[machorox123]

Olympic lifters do not train for strength; they train for speed strength - explosiveness, power. The reason some Olympic lifters don't get that big are....

#1- they don't have bulking diets
#2- they compete in specific weight classes and like to stay smaller to compete in certain weight classes.

Powerlifters grow up until the start slacking training and the predominantly use low reps. Look at the people that use starting strength, 5/3/1 or Bill Starrs program.

You'd respond better if you just use BOTH high and low reps though. I'm not for one or against the other, but either could be argued.

Yur jus arguing semantics... Strength is jus physical energy.. Which you can generate more of if you are explosive.. But i think yu missed my other post.we said the same thing. Evryone should train both

 

[AaronJP1]

Good points in here.

 

[Clean Machine]

put up some pictures of your progress and current physiques so we can see if the facts presented worked for you.

 

[Rodja]

Periodization.

Alas, which kind? Western, block, conjugate?

Yur jus arguing semantics... Strength is jus physical energy.. Which you can generate more of if you are explosive.. But i think yu missed my other post.we said the same thing. Evryone should train both

There are multiple kinds of strength: maximal strength, strength endurance, speed strength, strength speed, etc. Part of the problem with Western methods is that they completely disregard this and fail to incorporate the dynamic method.

 

[schizm]

I lift things up & put them down.

 

[B5150]

Alas, which kind? Western, block, conjugate?

I use a hybrid linear. I do not train for power so I modify it just a bit.

4 to 6 week cycles of 12-16 reps, 8-12 reps, 5-8 reps, 1 week off.
It is not unusual for me to take several extra days (even up to a week) off between cycles if needed.

 

[Rodja]

I use a hybrid linear. I do not train for power so I modify it just a bit.

4 to 6 week cycles of 12-16 reps, 8-12 reps, 5-8 reps, 1 week off.
It is not unusual for me to take several extra days (even up to a week) off between cycles if needed.

For a lay person, Western is fine, but it is terrible for athletes. It's part of the reason I didn't renew my CSCS.

 

[B5150]

Understood. It is very effective for my goals.

 

[lordspesh]

1 rep of an African elephant per month. Nuff said.

I prefer single arm alligators but it's good to see another man with real science behind their training. I find the side to side motion during the eccentric portion of the curl does wonders for my biceps.

 

[kingk0ng]

There are multiple kinds of strength: maximal strength, strength endurance, speed strength, strength speed, etc. Part of the problem with Western methods is that they completely disregard this and fail to incorporate the dynamic method.

Very good point.