5 Science-Based Hacks for Muscle Growth That Actually Work

I utilize all 5 and here is my feedback...
  1. Long-Length Partials - Once hitting 'failure' on a top working set I add in some partials to really exhaust the muscle. Or If/When weight is too heavy squeeze out some spotter assisted reps with the least amount of assistance at the long-length and most at the top for a squeeze.
  2. Supersets - Obvious. I find much more pumps and mind muscle also more volume per workout when implemented. Used at the beginning of a workout as a pre exhaust / warm up before going heavy; or at the end as a burn out. Overdoing this too often will extend recovery time especially if natty.
  3. Blood Flow Restriction - BFRs for leg day and bis and tris are great for when injured OR when you wish to use less weight to prevent injury. Painful pump on arms but not as easy to occlude on legs so you can wear it longer. I find it shortens recovery time and lessens next day soreness. Also builds toughness. Some noticeable hypertrophy gains from implementing them as a plateau breaker. Buy the cheap leg ones, they work for arms too and just as well as the expensive ones. Get a buddy to crank them as tight as you can handle without losing feeling in your fingers or feeling light headed.
  4. Exercise Swaps - Rank by feel/mind muscle, pump/contraction, Strength, and stretch/depth. Try to implement two of each per week.
  5. Inter-set Stretching - Last set should be finished by going right into a weighted stretch. Best on machines or cables - for example seated cable fly. I like to hold the stretch for at least 30 seconds to a minute. Painful, but It will stretch fascia for extra hypertrophy, blood flow, fullness and joint health. Also will KILL your strength so do it near the end of your workout, and avoid heavy lifts after or risk injury.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AwakeningAlpha said:
I utilize all 5 and here is my feedback...
Click to expand...
I appreciate seeing some actual feedback, much of which I think is in line with myself.

I read the article yesterday and was too lazy to post, but felt the superset stuff kind of missed the mark or doesn't fully line up with all the literature (and same for the exercise swaps). Your feedback is a little more in line, which is cool considering it is based on what worked for you, but seems to line up with what we see in the studies. :)

Personally (to add on my feedback):
1) I think these can be cool, I think I go back and forth a bit on "how" big a deal they are as it seems the hot new thing to obsess with. On a side note the curls in the video kind of make me laugh as the lengthened partials almost looks like most people's full rom while the unlengthened looks like newbie curls when you have to teach people proper rom. I think mostly I find it just helps reinforce taking some weight off and getting that full rom instead of missing that extra rom for more weight (even if not adopting actual partials).

2) I think the article misses the point or doesn't highlight the strengths and weaknesses here. Agonist-antagonist sets appear to be a great option (once conditioning is adequate and they are built up to) to shorten time frame (without hindering hypertrophy) or increase amount of work in a given time frame, which with the increasing amount of research showing higher and higher volume amounts still improving hypertrophy rates seems to be an even more beneficial/important thing to keep in mind. I feel biased because I've been programming agonist-antagonist work for decades now.

The idea of same muscle group super sets though I think are a lot less viable. I love to keep everything available as an option and think many things can have a place, but there are a lot of trade offs here. The specific study linked doesn't seem as incredibly positive to me or is a bit murky in its methods (I'll avoid getting sidetracked here), but the increased "intensity" of these types of super sets may be beneficial in periods where you want to really push things. When done though it is probably best during time periods when training is more infrequent (or when hitting each muscle group more infrequently) and/or just really trying to get better activation or building better ability to target a specific muscle.

3) Personally have seen an absolute ton of success in rebab with this. For non-injured athletes though I think there might still be some place. Arm work as a way to increase total volume/frequency and/or when trying to maintain, but doing a focus on other things and wanting to keep fatigue managed works great. As a finisher on legs after heavier training is another option I personally employ from time to time.

I think cheaper BFR are fine, I'd caution though that you might not need to crank them as hard as you think. I've used calibrated sets a ton and honestly usually always think it isn't tightened enough, but then get going and get a really good stimulus, just as a personal anecdote.

4) I don't think the article really even makes a case for this, but whatever. It does make sense to choose what seems to perform best for each, if that is the direction it was trying to go.

5) I don't do a ton of this and still am unsure about how applicable it really is, but I do know people who do enjoy it and your caveats seem like the optimal suggestions for it is chosen to be done.
 
Resolve10 said:
I appreciate seeing some actual feedback, much of which I think is in line with myself.

I read the article yesterday and was too lazy to post, but felt the superset stuff kind of missed the mark or doesn't fully line up with all the literature (and same for the exercise swaps). Your feedback is a little more in line, which is cool considering it is based on what worked for you, but seems to line up with what we see in the studies. :)

Personally (to add on my feedback):
1) I think these can be cool, I think I go back and forth a bit on "how" big a deal they are as it seems the hot new thing to obsess with. On a side note the curls in the video kind of make me laugh as the lengthened partials almost looks like most people's full rom while the unlengthened looks like newbie curls when you have to teach people proper rom. I think mostly I find it just helps reinforce taking some weight off and getting that full rom instead of missing that extra rom for more weight (even if not adopting actual partials).

2) I think the article misses the point or doesn't highlight the strengths and weaknesses here. Agonist-antagonist sets appear to be a great option (once conditioning is adequate and they are built up to) to shorten time frame (without hindering hypertrophy) or increase amount of work in a given time frame, which with the increasing amount of research showing higher and higher volume amounts still improving hypertrophy rates seems to be an even more beneficial/important thing to keep in mind. I feel biased because I've been programming agonist-antagonist work for decades now.

The idea of same muscle group super sets though I think are a lot less viable. I love to keep everything available as an option and think many things can have a place, but there are a lot of trade offs here. The specific study linked doesn't seem as incredibly positive to me or is a bit murky in its methods (I'll avoid getting sidetracked here), but the increased "intensity" of these types of super sets may be beneficial in periods where you want to really push things. When done though it is probably best during time periods when training is more infrequent (or when hitting each muscle group more infrequently) and/or just really trying to get better activation or building better ability to target a specific muscle.

3) Personally have seen an absolute ton of success in rebab with this. For non-injured athletes though I think there might still be some place. Arm work as a way to increase total volume/frequency and/or when trying to maintain, but doing a focus on other things and wanting to keep fatigue managed works great. As a finisher on legs after heavier training is another option I personally employ from time to time.

I think cheaper BFR are fine, I'd caution though that you might not need to crank them as hard as you think. I've used calibrated sets a ton and honestly usually always think it isn't tightened enough, but then get going and get a really good stimulus, just as a personal anecdote.

4) I don't think the article really even makes a case for this, but whatever. It does make sense to choose what seems to perform best for each, if that is the direction it was trying to go.

5) I don't do a ton of this and still am unsure about how applicable it really is, but I do know people who do enjoy it and your caveats seem like the optimal suggestions for it is chosen to be done.
Click to expand...
Agreed brother! Well said. I like to implement the new trends/science/gimmicks with a grain of salt. Adding them to an already successful training regimen rather than allowing them to replace what has proven tried and true.
With regards to the BFR tightness / crank, as well as the inter/post set stretch- I do this because I am a sicko who likes pushing pain threshold and pump, not necessarily because its supported by proven longterm gains. Though I like to believe there are likely ancillary benefits to the stretching of muscle, tendon and fascia, and increased blood flow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top