Lifting Reps or Heavy?

[PaulBlack]

If you're a beginner; that's too much...it can force too high of a lactic acid and blood CK level to recover from in a practical amount of time.

Personally, not sure I agree. Of course there is a huge varying description to failure. Advanced trainees failure definition, is not that same as a novice.
I think it is easier for a beginner to recover and go this far and still makes gains, since the beginner is no where near using the weights/loads and having the inroads and recovery issues that more advanced trainees are doing. They hit 90%-100% failure pretty quickly and are spent because they do not have the recovery to keep beating the horse like more advanced trainees do. That is why so many differing tests can show results. Because they use novices and novices/untrained respond to almost any type of protocol and training.
This is again where I see some training science(s) and laws, kind of getting in the way of just...

- Going to gym (showing up is the most important thing, most failures are not stapled to)
-Lifting weights up (too much enphasis put on how many reps, how many exercises, how many angles...)
- Going home and eating (nuff said)
-Going back to gym 2 days later and lifting more (adding weight to the big compounds, is one of, if not the most important point, if one one to keep getting bigger and stronger)
repeat...

 

[kisaj]

Personally, not sure I agree. Of course there is a huge varying description to failure. Advanced trainees failure definition, is not that same as a novice.

Yep, I don't agree with that theory one bit.

 

[Fizzeek]

Failure is the loss of the ability to properly execute another repetition to the exact same technique as the previous rep; typically full range. Grading it on a curved scale for the advanced trainer's preference doesn't change the definition it is what it is as a training principle as devised by Weider...not me I'm just the messenger. Gotta draw the line somewhere. Beyond that is rest pause, forced reps, cheating techniques, descending sets and partial reps.

 

[kisaj]

That post means nothing because that is an opinion of what failure is to you or the article you read. It's not hard to find 10 others with a different definition. In any case, this horse could get really beat.

I don't like or agree with training to failure, so for me it doesn't matter. I just think that there are different schools of thought to it and it's effectiveness for any level of experience.

 

[Fizzeek]

It's not an opinion, it's a method of a training principle standardized over 70yrs ago and outlined by Joe Weider, in his encyclopedia of modern bodybuilding...it's over 600 pages btw. Failure is failure...you can complete another full rep or you can't. There's only one way to say it.

 

[PaulBlack]

Failure is the loss of the ability to properly execute another repetition to the exact same technique as the previous rep; typically full range.

Yes, I know what it means in general, as I was more or less joking, but the terms of failure to you and to me may have differing levels and thus is hard to measure from a standpoint of rules to train by.
Failure to an untrained person is of course obvious but, will most likely have less overall inroad or systemic effect than a trainee using heavier loads. That is why beginner programs can have one training the entire body 3x per week with say 3x 8-10, and seeing progress nearly weekly for a good period, as recovery is fairly quick for the majority of them.

 

[Fizzeek]

Yes, I know what it means in general, as I was more or less joking, but the terms of failure to you and to me may have differing levels and thus is hard to measure from a standpoint of rules to train by.
Failure to an untrained person is of course obvious but, will most likely have less overall inroad or systemic effect than a trainee using heavier loads. That is why beginner programs can have one training the entire body 3x per week with say 3x 8-10, and seeing progress nearly weekly for a good period, as recovery is fairly quick for the majority of them.

That is true. But having a defined reference is good for educational text about "how much" one should do...Yate's coined forced reps as the highest intensity point. Right now, I'm experimenting with finding out if it's better to hit a muscle group within a couple of days less rest than I used to but with a little less emphasis on total exhaustion of it per workout; rather than beating the crap out of it and then taking more days off before doing it again. I think before it seemed like after a while I was just resting for too long, sometimes because even after the 4th or 5th day I was still sore.

 

[PaulBlack]

That is true. But having a defined reference is good for educational text about "how much" one should do...Yate's coined forced reps as the highest intensity point.

Okay, well my only point was...
Failure in the bi curl and failure in the squats, are going to elicit 2 totally different outcomes IMO. So almost everyone can go to failure in the bi curl and recover in a day or so whereas, failure in the squats, different. I have done failure in the curls many times, using Mentzer's negs and eccentrics and all of that. They never beat me up 2-4 days later, like a good heavy set of squats would, even taken to "almost failure" not even actual failure.
So what I am saying, is.. sure you can talk about failure, but it all depends on the trainee, the exercises, their levels and how uncomfortable they are willing to make themselves.

Right now, I'm experimenting with finding out if it's better to hit a muscle group within a couple of days less rest than I used to but with a little less emphasis on total exhaustion of it per workout; rather than beating the crap out of it and then taking more days off before doing it again. I think before it seemed like after a while I was just resting for too long, sometimes because even after the 4th or 5th day I was still sore.

Your older way rings of some HITish Jones/Mentzer one set to failure stuff. Most trainees will do better with a bit more volume, frequency and less super high intensity stuff, since the higher intensity stuff, drains the CNS and training becomes drudgery instead of fun.
* This has been a long going debate, before there has even been and internet. (from SuperSlow, HIT, Dr Ken, Bob Whelan to Mike and Arnold and I am going to guess it was more successful to some of those BB'ers, because of the extra PEDS they were using in comparison to us mere mortals. I trained protocols like Mentzer's /Viator's Intensity For Immensity stuff, years ago)
I am going to guess you will find your new protocols will perhaps work(at least for a while but not forever) It is like Dan John says. Everything works, for about 6 weeks then nothing seems to work. Progress will never happen in a linear fashion forever, especially as you get more and more advanced and adapted. The human body grows in spurts and by differing and changing stimuli.

 

[kisaj]

Damn.

 

[Fizzeek]

Good point...going to failure on squats even gets ya down to your toes! And it's pretty dangerous. I only do those to a mediocre level anymore, hardly even 200lbs...had a major back surgery in 2007 that put me out of training to hardly at all till about 4 months ago. Before that, ya I WAS employing some HIT principles only in the sense of "less is more" for a few years, I gained some strength and about 16lbs. And a lot of joint pain...lol

 

[gymratluke]

For me, I think my body responds best to low reps, 3-8 rep range. When I was a body builder I always tried to train in all rep ranges tho, I'd start out with a couple compound movements and do low reps, then do one compound movement in the 8-15 rep range, then bust out a a few isolation movements with diff rep ranges from 8-20.

 

[waynaferd]

Being older I feel way better doing 12~15 reps, and recently added a 4th set to everything.

I noticed some really nice gains size wise, although I haven't really added a lot of weight to my lifts after I got into it awhile.

Probably the last 6-8 years have been an under 8 rep range going heavy, and was definitely starting to feel it lol.

Haven't had shoulder pain for over a year now, doing higher reps.

 

[MrKleen73]

In the end no matter what rep range you use as long as you are using progressive resistance you will grow.

 

[Fizzeek]

In the end no matter what rep range you use as long as you are using progressive resistance you will grow.

True enough.

Low reps never give a pump like higher ones...is there any proven physiological effect to growth that the pump provides? It makes sense to think that everything you swallow eventually ends up in the bloodstream; and then if more than your normal blood volume than when you're sedentary is forced into the exercised muscle...lactic acid can stay behind, but what about the good stuff?

 

[asooneyeonig]

True enough.

Low reps never give a pump like higher ones...is there any proven physiological effect to growth that the pump provides? It makes sense to think that everything you swallow eventually ends up in the bloodstream; and then if more than your normal blood volume than when you're sedentary is forced into the exercised muscle...lactic acid can stay behind, but what about the good stuff?

the pump is only a pump, it does little if anything to show a stimulus for muscle growth. if it was, then there is no way for powerlifters and olympic lifters and strongman competitors and all the other non bodybuilders that dont bother with pumps to actually put on mass, yet they do. so it might help, but is not a requirement.

now if we are talking about occlusion training, then maybe. i am not familiar enough with the research to know for sure.

 

[kisaj]

I don't agree with that. When people think of a "pump" they are going for the look and feel of having the muscles engorged and that particular goal is cosmetic. What I don't think people realize is that in order to achieve that, you are actually working muscle fibers to achieve growth. That is why when you compare a BB against a powerlifter, there is a huge difference in muscle definition and size in most cases. A powerlifter isn't going for a pump or a muscle size, they are going for power and burst that utilizes more type 2 fibers. A BB or others will incorporate both rep ranges for strength and size, but concentrate on higher rep ranges for size.

A pump sounds cheesy because it is usually associated with a look, but the reality is that when you are achieving that pump, you are actually helping to build muscle size.

 

[asooneyeonig]

I don't agree with that. When people think of a "pump" they are going for the look and feel of having the muscles engorged and that particular goal is cosmetic. What I don't think people realize is that in order to achieve that, you are actually working muscle fibers to achieve growth. That is why when you compare a BB against a powerlifter, there is a huge difference in muscle definition and size in most cases. A powerlifter isn't going for a pump or a muscle size, they are going for power and burst that utilizes more type 2 fibers. A BB or others will incorporate both rep ranges for strength and size, but concentrate on higher rep ranges for size.

A pump sounds cheesy because it is usually associated with a look, but the reality is that when you are achieving that pump, you are actually helping to build muscle size.

a pump is temporary, like a matter of an hour or 2. muscle mass increase lasts months and takes months to see a visible difference.

and your analogy is lame as what you mean to say the difference in appearance to those that dont get it is only body fat, not muscle size or what fibers are being worked.

like this pic for example:
http://jtsstrength.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/64053_467045983332421_1322805638_n.jpg

most people would call him a bodybuilder by his look. he is not. he is a top ranked powerlifter. that is just one example of thousands i could give to show your analogy and thought process is incorrect.

now will a pump do nothing to help with muscle growth, seriously? do i even need to go there. it will to a tiny degree. so will sleep, eating enough food, being in a positive nitrogen balance, workout out consistently, working out hard enough, and many other things. overall the pump is like majoring in the minors. it wont get you far if anywhere by focusing on something so insignificant.

 

[kisaj]

LOL. I am going to let you live in your bubble because I really don't have the energy when you simply don't understand. And yes, I fully expect a bro'd out retort.

 

[waynaferd]

FST-7 uses the "pump" to drive nutrients into the muscle to get that biotch growing.......

 

[pyrobatt]

FST-7 uses the "pump" to drive nutrients into the muscle to get that biotch growing.......

Oh dear.....pump and muscle growth aren't always exclusive. They occasionally see other people.

 

[kisaj]

Say it isn't so!

 

[pyrobatt]

Say it isn't so!

Growth is a little whore. Goes all over the place. Sarcoplasmic and myofibril hypertrophy. Pump just sits there looking pretty

 

[kisaj]

I think the word pump is being thrown around a little too loose in these parts.

 

[asooneyeonig]

LOL. I am going to let you live in your bubble because I really don't have the energy when you simply don't understand. And yes, I fully expect a bro'd out retort.

really thats a bro'd out retort. then please explain the mechanisms behind the pump and muscle growth. you made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. if you dont have the energy to back up the claim then the claim has no validity.

 

[asooneyeonig]

Growth is a little whore. Goes all over the place. Sarcoplasmic and myofibril hypertrophy. Pump just sits there looking pretty

ROFL, best post in the thread

 

[tigerdb2]

There is some validity to the pump being worth a damn. One of the contributing factors to hypertrophy is metabolic stress/ the accumulation of metabolic by products. That's more or less the pump and part of the merit of occlusion training.
Now It's by no means the only factor for hypertrophy, but it is a contributor.

 

[kisaj]

Which is essentially what I was trying to say with "When people think of a "pump" they are going for the look and feel of having the muscles engorged and that particular goal is cosmetic. What I don't think people realize is that in order to achieve that, you are actually working muscle fibers to achieve growth."

Is the pump what is building muscle- no. I kind of figured that was a given. It's a by product that can happen and it certainly wasn't implied that it should be focused on.

 

[MrKleen73]

True enough.

Low reps never give a pump like higher ones...is there any proven physiological effect to growth that the pump provides? It makes sense to think that everything you swallow eventually ends up in the bloodstream; and then if more than your normal blood volume than when you're sedentary is forced into the exercised muscle...lactic acid can stay behind, but what about the good stuff?

the pump is only a pump, it does little if anything to show a stimulus for muscle growth. if it was, then there is no way for powerlifters and olympic lifters and strongman competitors and all the other non bodybuilders that dont bother with pumps to actually put on mass, yet they do. so it might help, but is not a requirement.

now if we are talking about occlusion training, then maybe. i am not familiar enough with the research to know for sure.

Some bad mofos out there in PL land!

Growth is a little whore. Goes all over the place. Sarcoplasmic and myofibril hypertrophy. Pump just sits there looking pretty

LOVE THIS!!!

ROFL, best post in the thread

Agreed!

The pump itself does not do that much for growth mostly it just looks pretty. Possibly increasing the blood flow getting nutrients to it faste but muscle can only use as much as it can use to grow and it seems to get enough without the pump. There are some ideas behind stretching the fascia, to allow more room for growth. However that may enable some more growth but the growth comes from the progressive resistance. Even in high volume work the goal still has to be increasing the weights. Sure High volume work provides a pump, and definitely increase volume via Sarcoplasmic volume. Yes that can increase performance or maybe moreso work capacity allowing more work to be done. Yet the real reason for growth is adapting to the progressive resistance regardless of rep range.

The Pump also tends to clear lactic acid from the muscle, this could actually lower the GH response to exercise since the lactic acid build up is part of the GH signalling. This is my understanding of why occlusion training works it causes a build up of lactic acid in the muscles which increases GH and localized IGF response.

 

[Fizzeek]

Some bad mofos out there in PL land!

LOVE THIS!!!


Agreed!

The pump itself does not do that much for growth mostly it just looks pretty. Possibly increasing the blood flow getting nutrients to it faste but muscle can only use as much as it can use to grow and it seems to get enough without the pump. There are some ideas behind stretching the fascia, to allow more room for growth. However that may enable some more growth but the growth comes from the progressive resistance. Even in high volume work the goal still has to be increasing the weights. Sure High volume work provides a pump, and definitely increase volume via Sarcoplasmic volume. Yes that can increase performance or maybe moreso work capacity allowing more work to be done. Yet the real reason for growth is adapting to the progressive resistance regardless of rep range.

The Pump also tends to clear lactic acid from the muscle, this could actually lower the GH response to exercise since the lactic acid build up is part of the GH signalling. This is my understanding of why occlusion training works it causes a build up of lactic acid in the muscles which increases GH and localized IGF response.

I'm going to have to look into this occlusion training.

 

[Quatie]

I'm going to have to look into this occlusion training.

Agreed

 

[kisaj]

Oh god. I really hope this goes away soon and I never have to see some ahole wearing straps pounding out reps of 95lbs on bench again.