Article: Do Pre-exhaustion Techniques Work?
- Thread starter The Press
- Start date
suheaven
New member
I agree 100% with the author.. I think the 2nd to last paragraph makes the strongest argument for why its a waste of time with pre-exhausting....
"Pre-exhaustion training will not lead to greater muscle fiber recruitment or greater joint safety for that matter. This is due to the fact that muscles which are normally used as prime movers during a compound movement are fatigued, which alters the motor pattern of the compound movement, resulting in less efficient and even unsafe technical execution of compound lifting movements."
"Pre-exhaustion training will not lead to greater muscle fiber recruitment or greater joint safety for that matter. This is due to the fact that muscles which are normally used as prime movers during a compound movement are fatigued, which alters the motor pattern of the compound movement, resulting in less efficient and even unsafe technical execution of compound lifting movements."
fueledpassion
Well-known member
First of all, Dorian Yates won 6, not 8, Olympia titles. The simplest information still the hardest to get right, it seems.
Secondly, "Prior to performing the leg press exercise, subjects performed a 10-repetition maximum in the leg extension, followed by a 10-repetition maximum in the leg press."
^^^ This is NOT a pre-exhausting workout by any standard, especially by a man who won 7 Olympia titles. The key to pre-exhausting is EXHAUSTING the muscle. The goal here is to tire the quad severely the way we see Kris Gethin do it - which is 3 giant sets of 100 reps. Afterwards, you will recruit other muscles to help with the work because the quad can't do it alone. It recruits heavily on the hams and glutes, which is the point of pre-exhausting a particular muscle (quads) before moving to compound movements. You don't pre-exhaust the quads to later use the quads in the following compound lift. Since quads are the dominant muscle used in presses and squats, we aim to tire them out to help use other surrounding muscles for the big lift. This helps the trainer learn how to target other muscles during a lift - teaches them how to "feel" the other muscles being used, rather than grunting and pushing.
Same technique would be used on bench press. Do a 3 trisets of 60+ reps each on chest using a variations of DB flyes, pec deck and wide-grip pushups to exhaust the muscle. Then move to close-grip bench press and utilize all of the tricep in the lift, in a full ROM. Pre-exhaust is never intended to help the primary mover, but to help use the secondary movers which the study above actually supports with tested results.
Thirdly, high repetitions in squats is FAR, FAR superior to low reps, heavy weight when it comes to building behemoth thighs. I had to learn this the hard way and unfortunately for the powerlifters in my gym - they haven't learned it yet. They keep training in the 1-6 rep range and they keep getting stronger but no added mass to their frame. High volume, moderate weight taken to high-intensity with high reps is the way to get massive legs. This also happens to be true for triceps.
And per the quote from the guy above saying
"This is due to the fact that muscles which are normally used as prime movers during a compound movement are fatigued, which alters the motor pattern of the compound movement, resulting in less efficient and even unsafe technical execution of compound lifting movements."
If you are pre-exhausting your muscle, you wouldn't be lifting heavy in the first place. At least not heavy enough to be concerned of any serious injuries. Besides, that statement supports the idea of targeting secondary muscles during a compound lift, which is the purpose of pre-exhaustion, IMO. Lifting in the 40-65% range is plenty to get huge if the reps are high enough. These techniques came from bodybuilders --> so use them in bodybuilding routines, not powerlifting routines.
Secondly, "Prior to performing the leg press exercise, subjects performed a 10-repetition maximum in the leg extension, followed by a 10-repetition maximum in the leg press."
^^^ This is NOT a pre-exhausting workout by any standard, especially by a man who won 7 Olympia titles. The key to pre-exhausting is EXHAUSTING the muscle. The goal here is to tire the quad severely the way we see Kris Gethin do it - which is 3 giant sets of 100 reps. Afterwards, you will recruit other muscles to help with the work because the quad can't do it alone. It recruits heavily on the hams and glutes, which is the point of pre-exhausting a particular muscle (quads) before moving to compound movements. You don't pre-exhaust the quads to later use the quads in the following compound lift. Since quads are the dominant muscle used in presses and squats, we aim to tire them out to help use other surrounding muscles for the big lift. This helps the trainer learn how to target other muscles during a lift - teaches them how to "feel" the other muscles being used, rather than grunting and pushing.
Same technique would be used on bench press. Do a 3 trisets of 60+ reps each on chest using a variations of DB flyes, pec deck and wide-grip pushups to exhaust the muscle. Then move to close-grip bench press and utilize all of the tricep in the lift, in a full ROM. Pre-exhaust is never intended to help the primary mover, but to help use the secondary movers which the study above actually supports with tested results.
Thirdly, high repetitions in squats is FAR, FAR superior to low reps, heavy weight when it comes to building behemoth thighs. I had to learn this the hard way and unfortunately for the powerlifters in my gym - they haven't learned it yet. They keep training in the 1-6 rep range and they keep getting stronger but no added mass to their frame. High volume, moderate weight taken to high-intensity with high reps is the way to get massive legs. This also happens to be true for triceps.
And per the quote from the guy above saying
"This is due to the fact that muscles which are normally used as prime movers during a compound movement are fatigued, which alters the motor pattern of the compound movement, resulting in less efficient and even unsafe technical execution of compound lifting movements."
If you are pre-exhausting your muscle, you wouldn't be lifting heavy in the first place. At least not heavy enough to be concerned of any serious injuries. Besides, that statement supports the idea of targeting secondary muscles during a compound lift, which is the purpose of pre-exhaustion, IMO. Lifting in the 40-65% range is plenty to get huge if the reps are high enough. These techniques came from bodybuilders --> so use them in bodybuilding routines, not powerlifting routines.
TKWW
New member
Science, and the lack thereof
I am amazed at what is professed to be science. Only in the world of exercise enthusiasts is science bastardized for non-financial exploitation. In others areas of scientific exploitation, at the very least there is the financial incentive to bastardize. In the worlds of athletic training, personal training, bodybuilding, etc. the amount of folklore and bastardizing never ceases to amuse. Folks, there is no holy grail that you can choose to make you a Mr. O contender. Though this info does not sell supplements, the facts are that many of the limitations and advantages to physical undertakings are inherited. While almost everyone can improve, the best will be the best and the alterations in body composition largely occurs in spite of the selected exercise methodology chosen.
Regarding pre-exaustion, Arthur Jones' own work, the originator of the method, both confirmed and contradicted this methodology. Jones' later research (Med-Ex)confirmed that there were those that responded better to one routine or another. There were those that barely responded to any routine. There were those that responded to any routine. The nonsense about the "Core' exercises (squats, bench press, etc.) programs is from the 50's and has never been proven in a well designed study. Though I advocate large muscle group exercise (as well as isolation exercise), I have assisted experienced competitive trainees with isolation exercises when compound movements were not possible due to an injury. The amount of muscle mass these subjects acquired when isolation only work was performed did not diminish the acquisition of muscle mass, which competitive bodybuilders would track with lean body mass assesments that compared prior to current pre-contest preparations. The EMG work quoted on pre-exhaust (some of which I performed) does not prove the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the pre-exhaust method. There is no dispute that the compound movement will show decreased recruitment following an isolation movement. A fatigued muscle will present decreased recruitment, which is the whole idea of pre-exhaust. The macho aggrandizing that pre-exhaust advocates are afraid of heavy weights is equally without merit. Heavy weights are employed in the isolation movement, which pre-fatigues the compound major joint movement, which then requires less weight. Suggesting Three Giant Sets of 100 reps is 1950's-60s manure! As a trainee from that time period, which was prior to formal education in exercise and medical sciences (including physiology, kinesiology, endocrinology, neurology) I also believed that is was the system, not the man, which is what these tales portend. The statement, "Pre-exhaust is never intended to help the primary mover, but to help use the secondary movers which the study above actually supports with tested results," is also not accurate. For example, the squat is a compound movement, and the synergistic neuromotor contractions of knee extensors (quadriceps) knee flexors (Hamstrings) hip extensors (gluteus) are required for execution The isolation movement of either the knee extensors or flexors is the isolation primary mover, and the compound motion of the squat further fatigued the pre-fatigued primary mover knee extensors.
The majority of maxim physical performance accomplishments in bodybuilding, power lifting, athletic endeavors, etc. are predetermined. With practice we gain efficiency and athletic performance increases. However, accomplished swimmers are not built like swimmers because they swim. Swimmers are built like swimmers because they were born, long, lean, with excellent ROM of the gleno humeral joint, and that is why the competitors look alike at a swim meet. Don't believe it? Think Ronnie Colemen could have competed in the 200 meter butterfly and made it to the Olympics? Regardless of the routine that Coleman would perform, he will never stand out as a swimmer. Though he will improve his swimming ability, he will never be a world class swimmer. Conversely, you will never se Michael Phelps standing next to Coleman on stage either.
Bodybuilding, the martial arts, playing the piano, whatever you choose; enjoy the trip more and debate less. Their are friendships to be made, things to learn, and improvements to had as the result of constant pursuit of your individual level of perfection. The best that you are may never bring you recognition, fame, or fortune. But attaining your individual best is a source of happiness and self satisfaction that can enrich your life if you allow yourself the opportunity. For the majority, the only person to whom you should compare yourself is to your former self. Are you better than you were last year, last month, last week, yesterday? Did you improve in any way, not the least of which is your understanding of yourself? If you have, you are successful regardless of the competition. As long as you allow others to define you, happiness will always be a goal, not an accomplishment.
Sincerely,
TKWW
I am amazed at what is professed to be science. Only in the world of exercise enthusiasts is science bastardized for non-financial exploitation. In others areas of scientific exploitation, at the very least there is the financial incentive to bastardize. In the worlds of athletic training, personal training, bodybuilding, etc. the amount of folklore and bastardizing never ceases to amuse. Folks, there is no holy grail that you can choose to make you a Mr. O contender. Though this info does not sell supplements, the facts are that many of the limitations and advantages to physical undertakings are inherited. While almost everyone can improve, the best will be the best and the alterations in body composition largely occurs in spite of the selected exercise methodology chosen.
Regarding pre-exaustion, Arthur Jones' own work, the originator of the method, both confirmed and contradicted this methodology. Jones' later research (Med-Ex)confirmed that there were those that responded better to one routine or another. There were those that barely responded to any routine. There were those that responded to any routine. The nonsense about the "Core' exercises (squats, bench press, etc.) programs is from the 50's and has never been proven in a well designed study. Though I advocate large muscle group exercise (as well as isolation exercise), I have assisted experienced competitive trainees with isolation exercises when compound movements were not possible due to an injury. The amount of muscle mass these subjects acquired when isolation only work was performed did not diminish the acquisition of muscle mass, which competitive bodybuilders would track with lean body mass assesments that compared prior to current pre-contest preparations. The EMG work quoted on pre-exhaust (some of which I performed) does not prove the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the pre-exhaust method. There is no dispute that the compound movement will show decreased recruitment following an isolation movement. A fatigued muscle will present decreased recruitment, which is the whole idea of pre-exhaust. The macho aggrandizing that pre-exhaust advocates are afraid of heavy weights is equally without merit. Heavy weights are employed in the isolation movement, which pre-fatigues the compound major joint movement, which then requires less weight. Suggesting Three Giant Sets of 100 reps is 1950's-60s manure! As a trainee from that time period, which was prior to formal education in exercise and medical sciences (including physiology, kinesiology, endocrinology, neurology) I also believed that is was the system, not the man, which is what these tales portend. The statement, "Pre-exhaust is never intended to help the primary mover, but to help use the secondary movers which the study above actually supports with tested results," is also not accurate. For example, the squat is a compound movement, and the synergistic neuromotor contractions of knee extensors (quadriceps) knee flexors (Hamstrings) hip extensors (gluteus) are required for execution The isolation movement of either the knee extensors or flexors is the isolation primary mover, and the compound motion of the squat further fatigued the pre-fatigued primary mover knee extensors.
The majority of maxim physical performance accomplishments in bodybuilding, power lifting, athletic endeavors, etc. are predetermined. With practice we gain efficiency and athletic performance increases. However, accomplished swimmers are not built like swimmers because they swim. Swimmers are built like swimmers because they were born, long, lean, with excellent ROM of the gleno humeral joint, and that is why the competitors look alike at a swim meet. Don't believe it? Think Ronnie Colemen could have competed in the 200 meter butterfly and made it to the Olympics? Regardless of the routine that Coleman would perform, he will never stand out as a swimmer. Though he will improve his swimming ability, he will never be a world class swimmer. Conversely, you will never se Michael Phelps standing next to Coleman on stage either.
Bodybuilding, the martial arts, playing the piano, whatever you choose; enjoy the trip more and debate less. Their are friendships to be made, things to learn, and improvements to had as the result of constant pursuit of your individual level of perfection. The best that you are may never bring you recognition, fame, or fortune. But attaining your individual best is a source of happiness and self satisfaction that can enrich your life if you allow yourself the opportunity. For the majority, the only person to whom you should compare yourself is to your former self. Are you better than you were last year, last month, last week, yesterday? Did you improve in any way, not the least of which is your understanding of yourself? If you have, you are successful regardless of the competition. As long as you allow others to define you, happiness will always be a goal, not an accomplishment.
Sincerely,
TKWW
fueledpassion
Well-known member
"Bodybuilding, the martial arts, playing the piano, whatever you choose; enjoy the trip more and debate less. Their are friendships to be made, things to learn, and improvements to had as the result of constant pursuit of your individual level of perfection. The best that you are may never bring you recognition, fame, or fortune. But attaining your individual best is a source of happiness and self satisfaction that can enrich your life if you allow yourself the opportunity. For the majority, the only person to whom you should compare yourself is to your former self. Are you better than you were last year, last month, last week, yesterday? Did you improve in any way, not the least of which is your understanding of yourself? If you have, you are successful regardless of the competition. As long as you allow others to define you, happiness will always be a goal, not an accomplishment."
Good post ^^^
So if I told you that I increased my arm circumference an inch using giant sets, that'd mean nothing to you and just because the paper work says otherwise, you'd refuse to actually believe that it is effective even with countless people verifying the results?
Nonetheless, giant sets whip the living crap out of 3 X 10 heavy reps on iso workouts and if done at the beginning of the workout, you can best bet that a pump and total leg exhaustion will be reached by the end of the compound lifts.
Not to mention that the even more important reason to create lots of blood flow to the leg using iso movements is to get the blood flowing in the joints surrounding the quad and hips, which allows for a safer workout on squats afterwards.
I really don't need to argue about this as I've used just about all the methods I can think of in the past and have seen results with all of them. Intensity and time-under tension are the key, which is why giant sets work so well.
Good post ^^^
So if I told you that I increased my arm circumference an inch using giant sets, that'd mean nothing to you and just because the paper work says otherwise, you'd refuse to actually believe that it is effective even with countless people verifying the results?
Nonetheless, giant sets whip the living crap out of 3 X 10 heavy reps on iso workouts and if done at the beginning of the workout, you can best bet that a pump and total leg exhaustion will be reached by the end of the compound lifts.
Not to mention that the even more important reason to create lots of blood flow to the leg using iso movements is to get the blood flowing in the joints surrounding the quad and hips, which allows for a safer workout on squats afterwards.
I really don't need to argue about this as I've used just about all the methods I can think of in the past and have seen results with all of them. Intensity and time-under tension are the key, which is why giant sets work so well.
TKWW
New member
"So if I told you that I increased my arm circumference an inch using giant sets, that'd mean nothing to you and just because the paper work says otherwise, you'd refuse to actually believe that it is effective even with countless people verifying the results?"
If you increased your arm measurement by 1 inch, I would say that you chose your parents wisely. You are gifted and poses the ability to attain muscle mass no matter what routine you choose. If an average Joe did 100 reps x 3 sets, that person would have a monoploy on lactic acid, possible exertional rhabdomyalysis, but would not increase arm circumference by 1 inch. One must ask, "how did you arrive at those magic numbers?" Did you first try 50 reps? Why did you stop at 100 reps? Why not 200? Why not 30 sets instead of 3? If blood flow is what matters, 30 sets will produce greater arterial dilation, which appears to be your concern.
You ask if a claimed 1 inch increase in arm circumference means something to me? No, it does not. Factual or not, it obviously means something to you. Everything you state is clearly your preference to which there is no objection. But you statements have not stood up to scientific examination under controlled circumstances, which you suggest are meaningless. I have been a researcher, a research subject, participated in muscle biopsy examinations of pre and post workout examination, and treated more than 20,000 patients, but my experience pales in comparison to your belief systems. If exercise is a science, should we employ the methodology that produces repeatable results, or listen to the tales that have populated gyms since 1963 (when I first started training)? You subscribe to the later principle that personal experience trumps methodology, I do not. The way data is manipulated to confuse the uninitiated is employed in many ways by exercise professionals of all stripes, especially where selling marginally effective supplements are concerned. The world of academia is no exception to data manipulation as each school of thought attempts to present supporting evidence to substantiate their position. Sifting through the studies (especially case studies) is offensive to many because it reveals poor study design that is usually riddled with selection bias. Selection bias is defined colloquially 'stacking the deck' to produce a desired outcome. Therefore, I do not intend to offend you by stating that your 1 inch of arm growth is difficult to believe. I am stating that you should do what you like, but temper professing to know the truth. You and an impressionable reader will be better served by having an open mind (this is not religion). For some, like yourself, exercise is a hobby. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Change your routine to have different experiences. If you are gifted physically, you will produce better results and be fooled into believing that you know exercise because your arm grew by 1 inch. I ask, "Would you go to a cardiologist that never had a heart attack?' How can someone that never had a heart attack know how to treat a infarct patient? Are heart attack victims the experts and the MD only a meaningless bystander? This line of thinking is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as believing that your experience beats anything that those of us that have spent decades understanding this information are nay sayers. I will never look like Mr. O. Therfore, I should understand that those anatomy courses when I dissected cadavers, those physiology courses, the kinesiology, the endocrinology, etc. are less pertinent than Giant Sets if that is what Mr. O proclaims to be the reason for his success. OK.
I haveNonetheless, giant sets whip the living crap out of 3 X 10 heavy reps on iso workouts and if done at the beginning of the workout, you can best bet that a pump and total leg exhaustion will be reached by the end of the compound lifts.
Not to mention that the even more important reason to create lots of blood flow to the leg using iso movements is to get the blood flowing in the joints surrounding the quad and hips, which allows for a safer workout on squats afterwards.
I really don't need to argue about this as I've used just about all the methods I can think of in the past and have seen results with all of them. Intensity and time-under tension are the key, which is why giant sets work so well.[/QUOTE]
If you increased your arm measurement by 1 inch, I would say that you chose your parents wisely. You are gifted and poses the ability to attain muscle mass no matter what routine you choose. If an average Joe did 100 reps x 3 sets, that person would have a monoploy on lactic acid, possible exertional rhabdomyalysis, but would not increase arm circumference by 1 inch. One must ask, "how did you arrive at those magic numbers?" Did you first try 50 reps? Why did you stop at 100 reps? Why not 200? Why not 30 sets instead of 3? If blood flow is what matters, 30 sets will produce greater arterial dilation, which appears to be your concern.
You ask if a claimed 1 inch increase in arm circumference means something to me? No, it does not. Factual or not, it obviously means something to you. Everything you state is clearly your preference to which there is no objection. But you statements have not stood up to scientific examination under controlled circumstances, which you suggest are meaningless. I have been a researcher, a research subject, participated in muscle biopsy examinations of pre and post workout examination, and treated more than 20,000 patients, but my experience pales in comparison to your belief systems. If exercise is a science, should we employ the methodology that produces repeatable results, or listen to the tales that have populated gyms since 1963 (when I first started training)? You subscribe to the later principle that personal experience trumps methodology, I do not. The way data is manipulated to confuse the uninitiated is employed in many ways by exercise professionals of all stripes, especially where selling marginally effective supplements are concerned. The world of academia is no exception to data manipulation as each school of thought attempts to present supporting evidence to substantiate their position. Sifting through the studies (especially case studies) is offensive to many because it reveals poor study design that is usually riddled with selection bias. Selection bias is defined colloquially 'stacking the deck' to produce a desired outcome. Therefore, I do not intend to offend you by stating that your 1 inch of arm growth is difficult to believe. I am stating that you should do what you like, but temper professing to know the truth. You and an impressionable reader will be better served by having an open mind (this is not religion). For some, like yourself, exercise is a hobby. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Change your routine to have different experiences. If you are gifted physically, you will produce better results and be fooled into believing that you know exercise because your arm grew by 1 inch. I ask, "Would you go to a cardiologist that never had a heart attack?' How can someone that never had a heart attack know how to treat a infarct patient? Are heart attack victims the experts and the MD only a meaningless bystander? This line of thinking is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as believing that your experience beats anything that those of us that have spent decades understanding this information are nay sayers. I will never look like Mr. O. Therfore, I should understand that those anatomy courses when I dissected cadavers, those physiology courses, the kinesiology, the endocrinology, etc. are less pertinent than Giant Sets if that is what Mr. O proclaims to be the reason for his success. OK.
I haveNonetheless, giant sets whip the living crap out of 3 X 10 heavy reps on iso workouts and if done at the beginning of the workout, you can best bet that a pump and total leg exhaustion will be reached by the end of the compound lifts.
Not to mention that the even more important reason to create lots of blood flow to the leg using iso movements is to get the blood flowing in the joints surrounding the quad and hips, which allows for a safer workout on squats afterwards.
I really don't need to argue about this as I've used just about all the methods I can think of in the past and have seen results with all of them. Intensity and time-under tension are the key, which is why giant sets work so well.[/QUOTE]
TKWW
New member
"So if I told you that I increased my arm circumference an inch using giant sets, that'd mean nothing to you and just because the paper work says otherwise, you'd refuse to actually believe that it is effective even with countless people verifying the results?"
If you increased your arm measurement by 1 inch, I would say that you chose your parents wisely. You are gifted and poses the ability to attain muscle mass no matter what routine you choose. If an average Joe did 100 reps x 3 sets, that person would have a monoploy on lactic acid, possible exertional rhabdomyalysis, but would not increase arm circumference by 1 inch. One must ask, "how did you arrive at those magic numbers?" Did you first try 50 reps? Why did you stop at 100 reps? Why not 200? Why not 30 sets instead of 3? If blood flow is what matters, 30 sets will produce greater arterial dilation, which appears to be your concern.
You ask if a claimed 1 inch increase in arm circumference means something to me? No, it does not. Factual or not, it obviously means something to you. Everything you state is clearly your preference to which there is no objection. But your statements have not stood up to scientific examination under controlled circumstances, which you suggest are meaningless. I have been a researcher, a research subject, participated in muscle biopsy examinations of pre and post workout examination, and treated more than 20,000 patients, but my experience pales in comparison to your belief systems. If exercise is a science, should we employ the methodology that produces repeatable results, or listen to the tales that have populated gyms since 1963 (when I first started training)? You subscribe to the later principle that personal experience trumps methodology, I do not. The way data is manipulated to confuse the uninitiated is employed in many ways by exercise professionals of all stripes, especially where selling marginally effective supplements are concerned. The world of academia is no exception to data manipulation as each school of thought attempts to present supporting evidence to substantiate their position. Sifting through the studies (especially case studies) is offensive to many because it reveals poor study design that is usually riddled with selection bias. Selection bias is defined colloquially 'stacking the deck' to produce a desired outcome. Therefore, I do not intend to offend you by stating that your 1 inch of arm growth is difficult to believe. I am stating that you should do what you like, but temper professing to know the truth. You and an impressionable reader will be better served by having an open mind (this is not religion). For some, like yourself, exercise is a hobby. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Change your routine to have different experiences. If you are gifted physically, you will produce better results and be fooled into believing that you know exercise because your arm grew by 1 inch. I ask, "Would you go to a cardiologist that never had a heart attack?' How can someone that never had a heart attack know how to treat a infarct patient? Are heart attack victims the experts and the MD only a meaningless bystander? This line of thinking is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as believing that your experience beats anything that those of us that have spent decades understanding this information are nay sayers. I will never look like Mr. O. Therfore, I should understand that those anatomy courses when I dissected cadavers, those physiology courses, the kinesiology, the endocrinology, etc. are less pertinent than Giant Sets if that is what Mr. O proclaims to be the reason for his success. OK.
I haveNonetheless, giant sets whip the living crap out of 3 X 10 heavy reps on iso workouts and if done at the beginning of the workout, you can best bet that a pump and total leg exhaustion will be reached by the end of the compound lifts.
Not to mention that the even more important reason to create lots of blood flow to the leg using iso movements is to get the blood flowing in the joints surrounding the quad and hips, which allows for a safer workout on squats afterwards.
I really don't need to argue about this as I've used just about all the methods I can think of in the past and have seen results with all of them. Intensity and time-under tension are the key, which is why giant sets work so well.[/QUOTE]
If you increased your arm measurement by 1 inch, I would say that you chose your parents wisely. You are gifted and poses the ability to attain muscle mass no matter what routine you choose. If an average Joe did 100 reps x 3 sets, that person would have a monoploy on lactic acid, possible exertional rhabdomyalysis, but would not increase arm circumference by 1 inch. One must ask, "how did you arrive at those magic numbers?" Did you first try 50 reps? Why did you stop at 100 reps? Why not 200? Why not 30 sets instead of 3? If blood flow is what matters, 30 sets will produce greater arterial dilation, which appears to be your concern.
You ask if a claimed 1 inch increase in arm circumference means something to me? No, it does not. Factual or not, it obviously means something to you. Everything you state is clearly your preference to which there is no objection. But your statements have not stood up to scientific examination under controlled circumstances, which you suggest are meaningless. I have been a researcher, a research subject, participated in muscle biopsy examinations of pre and post workout examination, and treated more than 20,000 patients, but my experience pales in comparison to your belief systems. If exercise is a science, should we employ the methodology that produces repeatable results, or listen to the tales that have populated gyms since 1963 (when I first started training)? You subscribe to the later principle that personal experience trumps methodology, I do not. The way data is manipulated to confuse the uninitiated is employed in many ways by exercise professionals of all stripes, especially where selling marginally effective supplements are concerned. The world of academia is no exception to data manipulation as each school of thought attempts to present supporting evidence to substantiate their position. Sifting through the studies (especially case studies) is offensive to many because it reveals poor study design that is usually riddled with selection bias. Selection bias is defined colloquially 'stacking the deck' to produce a desired outcome. Therefore, I do not intend to offend you by stating that your 1 inch of arm growth is difficult to believe. I am stating that you should do what you like, but temper professing to know the truth. You and an impressionable reader will be better served by having an open mind (this is not religion). For some, like yourself, exercise is a hobby. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Change your routine to have different experiences. If you are gifted physically, you will produce better results and be fooled into believing that you know exercise because your arm grew by 1 inch. I ask, "Would you go to a cardiologist that never had a heart attack?' How can someone that never had a heart attack know how to treat a infarct patient? Are heart attack victims the experts and the MD only a meaningless bystander? This line of thinking is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as believing that your experience beats anything that those of us that have spent decades understanding this information are nay sayers. I will never look like Mr. O. Therfore, I should understand that those anatomy courses when I dissected cadavers, those physiology courses, the kinesiology, the endocrinology, etc. are less pertinent than Giant Sets if that is what Mr. O proclaims to be the reason for his success. OK.
I haveNonetheless, giant sets whip the living crap out of 3 X 10 heavy reps on iso workouts and if done at the beginning of the workout, you can best bet that a pump and total leg exhaustion will be reached by the end of the compound lifts.
Not to mention that the even more important reason to create lots of blood flow to the leg using iso movements is to get the blood flowing in the joints surrounding the quad and hips, which allows for a safer workout on squats afterwards.
I really don't need to argue about this as I've used just about all the methods I can think of in the past and have seen results with all of them. Intensity and time-under tension are the key, which is why giant sets work so well.[/QUOTE]