Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Tbol Vs Ostarine

My issue is preserving HCG shelf life. Most of the time they come in 5000-10000 IU kits, and at the dose I'd be using weekly, (750iu) I cannot justify wasting 3/5ths of an HCG kit before it is no longer active after reconstituted. So does anybody have a remedy for this?

I'm not sure that it goes bad all that fast as long as you keep it refrigerated.

I got mine from the doc several months back based of his Rx guidelines, and assume that it's still good... although, if it's not, then it will likely change my A-dex requirement...



Invalid Link Removed
 
I believe you can freeze it prior to reconstituting it, but could be wrong....

Yeah most are that way, but some things can be frozen once reconstituted and still be good after 1 thaw but can not be refrozen. If that is the case then you just pull it into the pin the freeze the pins.
 
Just mix it with minimal amounts of bac water. The less you use, the less degradation of the compound. Keep it cold.

Also draw out several syringes of the hcg and deep freeze them individually. Thaw each individually as you need to use them. This work perfectly fine with IGF-1, so I don't see why it shouldn't work with this either, given that IGF is considerably more unstable than HCG, at least I think so.
 
I've actually thought about trying to get my hands on some tbol as I've heard of people running it solo with great success. The downside is that I've heard there is a high risk of getting bunk on this product and sourcing can be difficult. Also, I think I would feel super lame running an oral only AAS cycle haha
 
Just mix it with minimal amounts of bac water. The less you use, the less degradation of the compound. Keep it cold.

Also draw out several syringes of the hcg and deep freeze them individually. Thaw each individually as you need to use them. This work perfectly fine with IGF-1, so I don't see why it shouldn't work with this either, given that IGF is considerably more unstable than HCG, at least I think so.
This is precisely what I was thinking!
I've actually thought about trying to get my hands on some tbol as I've heard of people running it solo with great success. The downside is that I've heard there is a high risk of getting bunk on this product and sourcing can be difficult. Also, I think I would feel super lame running an oral only AAS cycle haha

Well if you have run oils then it sure would. If not then it is still a cycle and going to work... As far as it being bunk, I think the case is that it is often replaced with a cheaper option, but you still get gear and gains. Bottom line go to a reputable source and you do not have to worry about this stuff. If they get you bunk stuff they will replace it because their good name depends on that.
 
This is precisely what I was thinking!


Well if you have run oils then it sure would. If not then it is still a cycle and going to work... As far as it being bunk, I think the case is that it is often replaced with a cheaper option, but you still get gear and gains. Bottom line go to a reputable source and you do not have to worry about this stuff. If they get you bunk stuff they will replace it because their good name depends on that.

Never ran oils before. Gearing up to run my first cycle (halo) soon. I've been trying to source forever for PCT products which has made me paranoid because a lot of places seem reputable and get good reviews, but sometimes even that can be faked. Without third party testing (which isn't going to exist in this market) it's still kind of rolling the dice. It's one thing if a company skimps on the AAS a little bit, but it's another thing if they skimp on SERMs and AIs.
 
Never ran oils before. Gearing up to run my first cycle (halo) soon. I've been trying to source forever for PCT products which has made me paranoid because a lot of places seem reputable and get good reviews, but sometimes even that can be faked. Without third party testing (which isn't going to exist in this market) it's still kind of rolling the dice. It's one thing if a company skimps on the AAS a little bit, but it's another thing if they skimp on SERMs and AIs.

Find a guy you trust on the board that also trusts you and then PM them and get an email to ask who their source is... it is pretty simple. Also there are source boards out there that are purely there for sources to advertise on and people log their products. Find one of those and talk about it openly and freely.

As far as feeling super lame running an oral only AAS run, what exactly do you think you are doing with halo? As of the bans it is a schedule III steroid... a felony in the US to have on your person. Make no mistake you are indeed running an oral only AAS cycle. With the TBol it would just be safer as it has been approved for human use...
 
Find a guy you trust on the board that also trusts you and then PM them and get an email to ask who their source is... it is pretty simple. Also there are source boards out there that are purely there for sources to advertise on and people log their products. Find one of those and talk about it openly and freely.

As far as feeling super lame running an oral only AAS run, what exactly do you think you are doing with halo? As of the bans it is a schedule III steroid... a felony in the US to have on your person. Make no mistake you are indeed running an oral only AAS cycle. With the TBol it would just be safer as it has been approved for human use...

I've received some sources from some trusted people here, then to find out that they've changed their source shortly after. But you're right, I have found some other boards that talk openly about sources and then everyone rallies behind a select company or 2 and then they end up closing or find out they were bunk. Sometimes if 1 or 2 reputable people will recommend a company the herd will just follow.

As for the Halo cycle - you're 100% right. I never said it made sense, it's just that I would feel weird running an oral only AAS cycle. I could only imagine how harsh the guys on this forum would grill me over it haha.. but you're absolutely right.
 
I've received some sources from some trusted people here, then to find out that they've changed their source shortly after. But you're right, I have found some other boards that talk openly about sources and then everyone rallies behind a select company or 2 and then they end up closing or find out they were bunk. Sometimes if 1 or 2 reputable people will recommend a company the herd will just follow.

As for the Halo cycle - you're 100% right. I never said it made sense, it's just that I would feel weird running an oral only AAS cycle. I could only imagine how harsh the guys on this forum would grill me over it haha.. but you're absolutely right.

I have to say that you are going to be hard pressed to find research companies that are dependable that stay dependable. So right now I will recommend someone I know is reputable and sponsors here. Anything you get from Premier Research is going to be legit... I don't see that changing unless someone bought them out...

However when I mention sources I mean legit sources, all black market, no research companies and their are some that have stood the test of time out there. Don't go for the newest flash in the pan, go for somewhere that is established. In the end it is indeed all a gamble though.

As far as the AAS yeah don't worry I am not into berating anyone about stuff like that. I just thought it sounded funny all in the same paragraph.
 
I have to say that you are going to be hard pressed to find research companies that are dependable that stay dependable. So right now I will recommend someone I know is reputable and sponsors here. Anything you get from Premier Research is going to be legit... I don't see that changing unless someone bought them out...

However when I mention sources I mean legit sources, all black market, no research companies and their are some that have stood the test of time out there. Don't go for the newest flash in the pan, go for somewhere that is established. In the end it is indeed all a gamble though.

As far as the AAS yeah don't worry I am not into berating anyone about stuff like that. I just thought it sounded funny all in the same paragraph.

You make some very good points. I've seen overseas pharmacies (usually India) that people typically stick with. Even that is a gamble from getting good quality (FDA has noted issues with them) to getting it through customs. It's what partially makes research chems desirable. I'm noticing more of the research chem companies creating tablets now, which is kind of odd. I'm definitely going to look into PRE as they are a board sponsor and I'm sure many people here have used them.
 
You make some very good points. I've seen overseas pharmacies (usually India) that people typically stick with. Even that is a gamble from getting good quality (FDA has noted issues with them) to getting it through customs. It's what partially makes research chems desirable. I'm noticing more of the research chem companies creating tablets now, which is kind of odd. I'm definitely going to look into PRE as they are a board sponsor and I'm sure many people here have used them.

Well, I know you do not know me well but I will stake my good name on their reputation right now. I can't speak for the future but if it stays under the same people that value integrity then I have no worries about any of their products in the future either.
 
Well, I know you do not know me well but I will stake my good name on their reputation right now. I can't speak for the future but if it stays under the same people that value integrity then I have no worries about any of their products in the future either.

That's a great endorsement! I'm going to use them for my PCT needs for now. As for stuff like Tbol, I've found some places but who knows what's legit. I'm much more paranoid about getting legit PCT. With the Tbol I am more much willing to roll the dice. Thanks again man! I do appreciate it!
 
MrKleen73 and anybody it applies to that knows my future cycle well at this point, I have question I never asked before.

Wha type of training do I do on cycle? Am I going for high volume, and low volume pct?
 
MrKleen73 and anybody it applies to that knows my future cycle well at this point, I have question I never asked before.

Wha type of training do I do on cycle? Am I going for high volume, and low volume pct?

personally, I would increase your volume on cycle, at least a little bit. if it's something as small an extra set per exercise, then do that....

for PCT/off cycle, I would train how you do most of the time now. basically how a natural trainee would lift, based off your protocol/training goals...
 
MrKleen73 and anybody it applies to that knows my future cycle well at this point, I have question I never asked before.

Wha type of training do I do on cycle? Am I going for high volume, and low volume pct?

I've kind of wondered this myself. I think whether you're doing volume or high intensity you can always step up your game a little bit (although it's not always that easy). I do both high intensity and volume training and often times I combine the two. I say just train as hard as you can whichever you choose. Although I would like to hear more about the benefits of using volume vs intensity training when using AAS/PHs.
 
I've kind of wondered this myself. I think whether you're doing volume or high intensity you can always step up your game a little bit (although it's not always that easy). I do both high intensity and volume training and often times I combine the two. I say just train as hard as you can whichever you choose. Although I would like to hear more about the benefits of using volume vs intensity training when using AAS/PHs.



Well since you grow much more you can also injure yourself. Most bodybuilders swear by 8-20 reps mostly 12. Imagine going to the gym lifting a weight one time or lifting 70% of that weight 8 times. The only reason to lift your max is to increase the weight you can lift = increasing your normal 70% with a higher weight. you want the burn and the pump when building building physique.
 
MrKleen73 and anybody it applies to that knows my future cycle well at this point, I have question I never asked before.

Wha type of training do I do on cycle? Am I going for high volume, and low volume pct?

I have to say "It Depends" goals are a major factor in training selection... type of training and level of enjoyment will also come into play. If you love the training you are more likely to excel in the program too. Lots of factors to be honest.

For someone wanting to gain size and maintain as much of it as possible after PCT that is what I would recommend. Your body and CNS can handle volume much better while on gear, and pushing higher volume to drive hypertrophy rather than strength tends to be less likely to cause injuries on cycle.

Many high volume programs out there, you have to pick your poison based on what type of training you prefer. So long as it is higher volume and based in hypertrophy then you are going to grow well from it on gear.

A few tried and true programs - Any John Meadows program, German Volume Training, BPaks Mi40 X2, FST-7

However if you are a big responder to growth from something like DogCrapp training then using that on cycle even though not high volume is still going to give stellar results but chance of injury might be higher since focus is really on increasing the weights being lifted.

As for post cycle training, something a bit lower volume but higher intensity will help to keep the actual gains better. Something basic like a good 5x5 program will work great during this time, or going from a high volume to something like DogCrapp during PCT could be very good.


Well since you grow much more you can also injure yourself. Most bodybuilders swear by 8-20 reps mostly 12. Imagine going to the gym lifting a weight one time or lifting 70% of that weight 8 times. The only reason to lift your max is to increase the weight you can lift = increasing your normal 70% with a higher weight. you want the burn and the pump when building building physique.

YOu need both to grow efficiently, it is not just the burn and pump that makes things grow. Their are many avenues toward growth and the more you take advantage of the better results you are going to get. The rep ranges you mention are effective but there is far newer information regarding muscle growth that goes much deeper into things and increases the efficiency of growth.

I already went through the trouble of typing this up in another thread, so I am just going to quote it over here to explain some of the reasons why the higher volume on cycle and higher intensity post cycle makes the most sense for those seeking to gain and retain hypertrophy as opposed to performance increases from a cycle...

He is running HCG throughout so his recovery is going to be a breeze guys... his plumbing never completely went on hiatus. Recovery is going to be pretty easy on him. He is also controlling cortisol, so he has the hormones relatively in check.

As far as dropping volume and increasing intensity in PCT, this is to keep or maintain myofibrular muscle size, not the volume of the muscle itself. EI, the heavier loads with less volume stimulate the thickening of the muscle fiber, As to where adding volume to the workout does the exact same thing to the muscle, it adds volume, aka size but not via protein accrual. YOu also gain contractile tissue with high volume too, but only when volume is high enough that the fatigue of the fibers is causing failure to some of the fibers.

Certainly you will lose some "size" or volume after the cycle because you do not have super-physiological nutrient partitioning any longer so less glycogen will be stored in the muscle. Also with lower volume the muscle will decide it may not need as many mitochondria, and or fluid in the muscle cell. So you loose volume there, but as long as you do not lose the gained thickness in the actual muscle fiber then you have not lost your "gains".

Glycogen related LBM is EASY to regain, and a week or two at higher volumes with higher carbs will swell the muscle right back up to the old higher volume. So if looking at the big picture, lowering volume is often necessary to help with maintaining the CNS post cycle. Since that is often a must, or best case scenario, you want to accommodate that reduction in volume by lifting heavier to recruit & contract more muscle fibers more quckly with less drain on the CNS. Basically the more muscle fibers fatigue and fail due to intensity, the more are recruited with less actual workload due to the increased intensity. So you work less, but harder for the same effect on the contractile tissue without the drain on the CNS of high volume training. Obviously volume must also be dropped in order to maintain the higher intensity loads as well. They just go hand in hand in that aspect. High volume and high intensity is a recipe for CNS degradation!

Anyway the method is about preserving the size of the actual contractile tissue and not cell volume.

Remember there are two types of growth, one is sarcoplasmic, (mitochondria, intracellular fluid, glycogen storage and the like). This is volume driven, and the other is myofibular growth / contractile tissue growth which is driven by the intensity of the contraction needed to move the weight.
 
I have to say "It Depends" goals are a major factor in training selection... type of training and level of enjoyment will also come into play. If you love the training you are more likely to excel in the program too. Lots of factors to be honest.

For someone wanting to gain size and maintain as much of it as possible after PCT that is what I would recommend. Your body and CNS can handle volume much better while on gear, and pushing higher volume to drive hypertrophy rather than strength tends to be less likely to cause injuries on cycle.

Many high volume programs out there, you have to pick your poison based on what type of training you prefer. So long as it is higher volume and based in hypertrophy then you are going to grow well from it on gear.

A few tried and true programs - Any John Meadows program, German Volume Training, BPaks Mi40 X2, FST-7

However if you are a big responder to growth from something like DogCrapp training then using that on cycle even though not high volume is still going to give stellar results but chance of injury might be higher since focus is really on increasing the weights being lifted.

As for post cycle training, something a bit lower volume but higher intensity will help to keep the actual gains better. Something basic like a good 5x5 program will work great during this time, or going from a high volume to something like DogCrapp during PCT could be very good.




YOu need both to grow efficiently, it is not just the burn and pump that makes things grow. Their are many avenues toward growth and the more you take advantage of the better results you are going to get. The rep ranges you mention are effective but there is far newer information regarding muscle growth that goes much deeper into things and increases the efficiency of growth.

I already went through the trouble of typing this up in another thread, so I am just going to quote it over here to explain some of the reasons why the higher volume on cycle and higher intensity post cycle makes the most sense for those seeking to gain and retain hypertrophy as opposed to performance increases from a cycle...

I don't mean you shouldn't lift heavy but the fact that lifting one rep is useless is true. The only time it's beneficial to some degree is of you're burning yourself out on other sets. In other words you can't go and do your max 1 time at bench, one time with dumbbells etc.
 
I have to say "It Depends" goals are a major factor in training selection... type of training and level of enjoyment will also come into play. If you love the training you are more likely to excel in the program too. Lots of factors to be honest.

For someone wanting to gain size and maintain as much of it as possible after PCT that is what I would recommend. Your body and CNS can handle volume much better while on gear, and pushing higher volume to drive hypertrophy rather than strength tends to be less likely to cause injuries on cycle.

Many high volume programs out there, you have to pick your poison based on what type of training you prefer. So long as it is higher volume and based in hypertrophy then you are going to grow well from it on gear.

A few tried and true programs - Any John Meadows program, German Volume Training, BPaks Mi40 X2, FST-7

However if you are a big responder to growth from something like DogCrapp training then using that on cycle even though not high volume is still going to give stellar results but chance of injury might be higher since focus is really on increasing the weights being lifted.

As for post cycle training, something a bit lower volume but higher intensity will help to keep the actual gains better. Something basic like a good 5x5 program will work great during this time, or going from a high volume to something like DogCrapp during PCT could be very good.




YOu need both to grow efficiently, it is not just the burn and pump that makes things grow. Their are many avenues toward growth and the more you take advantage of the better results you are going to get. The rep ranges you mention are effective but there is far newer information regarding muscle growth that goes much deeper into things and increases the efficiency of growth.

I already went through the trouble of typing this up in another thread, so I am just going to quote it over here to explain some of the reasons why the higher volume on cycle and higher intensity post cycle makes the most sense for those seeking to gain and retain hypertrophy as opposed to performance increases from a cycle...

What about something like Mike Mentzer HIT style training? I used to do that years ago and it was brutal. The downside is that it was nearly impossible to train more than 3 days per week. The upside is that the workouts can be short - excellent for people who are short on time. But I trained with a doctor once and when he saw my HIT training style he lectured me about how I was overworking my CNS. In hindsight, those were some extreme workouts. I remember blacking out on one of the nautilus machines. Most of the workouts I would end up vomiting before I would even get through the whole thing. Had to set my heart rate monitor to go off when I would exceed my max heart rate so I could try to control myself.
 
I don't mean you shouldn't lift heavy but the fact that lifting one rep is useless is true. The only time it's beneficial to some degree is of you're burning yourself out on other sets. In other words you can't go and do your max 1 time at bench, one time with dumbbells etc.

Training the 1 rep max is useless for what exactly? It is far from useless, and definitely still drives physical adaptation, just not a big factor for hypertrophy training. Training our 1 rep max to increase your 1 rep max is quite effective... Training it to increase contractile efficiency is useful in every aspect of training including the mind muscle connection that is always talked about in hypertrophy training. Also if you think that hitting a few hard singles a week for each body part is not going to tell the body it still needs to preserve the contractile protein it accrued specifically to handle heavier weights then you do not understand how the body treats contractile tissue ie muscle when it comes to overall energy consumption and efficiency. The body gets rid of muscle that is sees as unneeded because it is a drain on the system if it is not being used or preserved for a specific reason. EI lifting heavy crap...

Also, one heavy set to failure IE failing at 1 rep or 3 is still going to drive some growth because you hit failure and the body knows it needs to be stronger for the next time... That drives adaptation again by increasing contractile tissue or increasing the efficiency at which the CNS makes the muscle fire.

Things are not all about volume and single rep efforts do offer lots of value. Now injury wise it is a bit smarter to keep the intensity a bit lower like in the 90% range and do 3-5 reps a set instead. However adaptation, or decisions to use resources to keep newly accrued contractile protein will largely be based on if the activities still show a need to maintain it.
 
What about something like Mike Mentzer HIT style training? I used to do that years ago and it was brutal. The downside is that it was nearly impossible to train more than 3 days per week. The upside is that the workouts can be short - excellent for people who are short on time. But I trained with a doctor once and when he saw my HIT training style he lectured me about how I was overworking my CNS. In hindsight, those were some extreme workouts. I remember blacking out on one of the nautilus machines. Most of the workouts I would end up vomiting before I would even get through the whole thing. Had to set my heart rate monitor to go off when I would exceed my max heart rate so I could try to control myself.

Oh man HIT is defnitely effective too, I would almost need to do a seminar to go into why the different type of programs work, and what the pros and cons of them are.

For HIT I will say this... It is not really that low volume, but it is very high intensity. Most people ignored the fact that Mentzer, and Dorian did 3-4 warm up sets with what most would consider borderline average persons work set intensity before doing the 1 HIT set. So they were accruing volume through those sets as well. Now they have learned that reaching failure is a big anabolic driver and in 1 HIT set you reach many points of failure and throughout various ranges of the ROM. What ends up happening is you get the same amount of effective reps in as someone using a higher volume approach.

Think of it this way, if you have a workout with 6 sets of an exercise and you are training to an RPE8 on every set but the last which is to failure.

Well for each set you are going to have 1-2 grinder reps that really makes you work, and then the final set has 1-2 grinders and a point of failure. You end up with about 12-13 effective reps. By effective I mean the ones that were hard enough to drive adaptation.

Now take something like HIT, you take a heavy weight to failure, 2 grinding reps and 1 point of failure, then you drop the weight and repeat, 2 grinding reps and 1 to failure, and repeat, and repeat all the way down into partial ROM reps... By the end of this and after 4 drops sets you have hit 8 grinding reps and 4 points of failure. So the growth stimulus is going to be pretty close...

See how the effective reps kind of even themselves out there? Now when you consider things like intensity and what not being different you see that the intensity is higher on the HIT which is going to drive growth, but the overall volume will be a bit lower so it evens out a bit. As to where with basic volume training the overall volume will drive the growth more, but the lower intensity a little less. So when it comes down to that type of thing I really see it as a preference issue.

When you start adding in risk of injury, and other factors things start shaping up differently too. I would say that running HIT you are always going to be more likely to get yourself injured. It is the nature of the beast... Just ask Dorian. When on cycle that chance increases due to the extra strength and the fact that non contractile tissues do not grow from gear so connective tissues often cannot keep up. Also HIT is definitely a bit harder on your CNS. You wont hear me arguing it's effectiveness for muscle growth though...
 
Oh man HIT is defnitely effective too, I would almost need to do a seminar to go into why the different type of programs work, and what the pros and cons of them are.

For HIT I will say this... It is not really that low volume, but it is very high intensity. Most people ignored the fact that Mentzer, and Dorian did 3-4 warm up sets with what most would consider borderline average persons work set intensity before doing the 1 HIT set. So they were accruing volume through those sets as well. Now they have learned that reaching failure is a big anabolic driver and in 1 HIT set you reach many points of failure and throughout various ranges of the ROM. What ends up happening is you get the same amount of effective reps in as someone using a higher volume approach.

Think of it this way, if you have a workout with 6 sets of an exercise and you are training to an RPE8 on every set but the last which is to failure.

Well for each set you are going to have 1-2 grinder reps that really makes you work, and then the final set has 1-2 grinders and a point of failure. You end up with about 12-13 effective reps. By effective I mean the ones that were hard enough to drive adaptation.

Now take something like HIT, you take a heavy weight to failure, 2 grinding reps and 1 point of failure, then you drop the weight and repeat, 2 grinding reps and 1 to failure, and repeat, and repeat all the way down into partial ROM reps... By the end of this and after 4 drops sets you have hit 8 grinding reps and 4 points of failure. So the growth stimulus is going to be pretty close...

See how the effective reps kind of even themselves out there? Now when you consider things like intensity and what not being different you see that the intensity is higher on the HIT which is going to drive growth, but the overall volume will be a bit lower so it evens out a bit. As to where with basic volume training the overall volume will drive the growth more, but the lower intensity a little less. So when it comes down to that type of thing I really see it as a preference issue.

When you start adding in risk of injury, and other factors things start shaping up differently too. I would say that running HIT you are always going to be more likely to get yourself injured. It is the nature of the beast... Just ask Dorian. When on cycle that chance increases due to the extra strength and the fact that non contractile tissues do not grow from gear so connective tissues often cannot keep up. Also HIT is definitely a bit harder on your CNS. You wont hear me arguing it's effectiveness for muscle growth though...

At the end of the day, I like to go back and forth between high volume and high intensity and sometimes combine the two. But yeah, if you're doing HIT you have to be mentally prepared for it. I introduced it to a few big guys before who were only doing high volume. They laughed at the idea that so much of it is based around using machines and to them it sounded easy. But when they actually did it they were taken by surprise and would quit before the workout completed. It kind of requires a different kind of conditioning than the high volume training. My heart rate always skyrockets when I get to failure and beyond. Also, it's extremely painful (which I like about it ;) ). You can actually feel your muscles crying for help during the workout. The way you tear those muscle apart with those slow reps and then drop sets..... mmmm
 
At the end of the day, I like to go back and forth between high volume and high intensity and sometimes combine the two. But yeah, if you're doing HIT you have to be mentally prepared for it. I introduced it to a few big guys before who were only doing high volume. They laughed at the idea that so much of it is based around using machines and to them it sounded easy. But when they actually did it they were taken by surprise and would quit before the workout completed. It kind of requires a different kind of conditioning than the high volume training. My heart rate always skyrockets when I get to failure and beyond. Also, it's extremely painful (which I like about it ;) ). You can actually feel your muscles crying for help during the workout. The way you tear those muscle apart with those slow reps and then drop sets..... mmmm

Yeah, I did it for a few years myself. I loved it. I love all of the intensity techniques and have to often remind myself that going balls to the wall 100% of the time is not only not safe but it is also truly not the most efficient way to make gains. Part of the reason with HIT that frequency must be lower because it will tear your ass up if you don't regulate it when using proper intensity.

Right now I am doing well doing more moderate volume, higher frequency and 1 sometimes 2 points of failure per body part at each workout. Hitting all body parts 3-4 times a week. If I increased the volume I would need to do less points of failure, or limit frequency but right now I am getting a nice mix of intensity, volume and frequency. My program is modified, but based off of Fortitude Training by Dr Scott Stevenson. It is a GREAT BOOK and program no matter what stage of the game you are in.
 
Again I'm saying that not burning your muscles is not gonna be more effective than high reps. Not saying to completely skip shorter sets
 
As far as going to failure is concerned, that's a normal thing in my routine. My coach expects me to do this at least once every single exercise, which means probably 4-6 times per session. But then again, it's amazing what you can condition your body to do over time with the help of supps and PED's. When I'm full-swing into contest prepping, what I do for workouts would cripple a newb for 8-10 days and I might find myself doing it 6 days a week. By newb, I mean anyone who isn't a college level athlete and/or hasn't added at least 20-30% lean tissue to their frame. I'm not suggesting that I'm as talented or physically conditioned as a D1 football player, but I am suggesting that in the realm of weight training - probably so. Anyways, my default routine flows like this:

-Warm-up
-Working sets (1 rep shy of failure)
-Set or two to failure + forced reps
-Final set is a blood-gorging giant set or some sort of superset.

All lifting performed with ideal form and rather slow eccentric phase, with emphasis on the lifter having full control of the weight.

That ^^^ is what I'd consider a well-rounded approach. Only other one more comprehensive is probably the Y3T style training. Certain body parts benefit more from lower-intensity but high volume training, namely, biceps, triceps, quads and calves.

I think Neil Hill covers this concept thoroughly using somewhat unknown yet modern studies.
 
Again I'm saying that not burning your muscles is not gonna be more effective than high reps. Not saying to completely skip shorter sets

No, you very specifically said singles were useless... I listed multiple reasons why they were not. I also listed multiple reasons why in the users scenario it could be more beneficial to do lower reps in the 3-5 rep range during PCT. Which you did not address or challenge, but came back with a more watered down response saying you aren't saying not to lift heavy, but reiterated that singles are truly useless... Now your response is more watered down, it is not even singles, we have gone more generic and said "Again (for the first time actually) I am saying that not burning your muscles is not gonna be more effective than high reps. Not saying to completely skip them."

You also specifically said that the burn and pump was what he wanted to go for to grow. Not true, that is just ONE of the aspects of training that can make you grow, however progressive overload is the most important factor in training to gain an adaptation. I know guys who have gotten huge off of nothing but 5 reps or below, and have never really worked for a pump, but they grow regardless due to consistent progressive overload...

So first low reps / singles were useless, now it is a much less committed low reps aren't gonna be more effective than feeling the burn and getting a pump... Seems at some point during all of this you would exercise some humility and just mention that you had not considered some of the other information and each principle of training has its place in hypertrophy accrual. However your pride isn't allowing it to the point you keep reinventing what it was you said to make each version less of a concrete statement. Pride is a mofo...

In an effort to get this back on track...With what has already been said regarding why it would be beneficial to change gears in PCT which was the last question he asked. Can you tell me why it would not be beneficial for him to change over to a higher intensity lower volume workout rather than staying high volume throughout PCT?
 
No, you very specifically said singles were useless... I listed multiple reasons why they were not. I also listed multiple reasons why in the users scenario it could be more beneficial to do lower reps in the 3-5 rep range during PCT. Which you did not address or challenge, but came back with a more watered down response saying you aren't saying not to lift heavy, but reiterated that singles are truly useless... Now your response is more watered down, it is not even singles, we have gone more generic and said "Again (for the first time actually) I am saying that not burning your muscles is not gonna be more effective than high reps. Not saying to completely skip them."

You also specifically said that the burn and pump was what he wanted to go for to grow. Not true, that is just ONE of the aspects of training that can make you grow, however progressive overload is the most important factor in training to gain an adaptation. I know guys who have gotten huge off of nothing but 5 reps or below, and have never really worked for a pump, but they grow regardless due to consistent progressive overload...

So first low reps / singles were useless, now it is a much less committed low reps aren't gonna be more effective than feeling the burn and getting a pump... Seems at some point during all of this you would exercise some humility and just mention that you had not considered some of the other information and each principle of training has its place in hypertrophy accrual. However your pride isn't allowing it to the point you keep reinventing what it was you said to make each version less of a concrete statement. Pride is a mofo...

In an effort to get this back on track...With what has already been said regarding why it would be beneficial to change gears in PCT which was the last question he asked. Can you tell me why it would not be beneficial for him to change over to a higher intensity lower volume workout rather than staying high volume throughout PCT?

I believe the research suggests that high intensity, low rep stuff is more likely to increase testosterone as part of a complicated mess of adaptations to frying the CNS. I would agree here.

Among other things, I would use insulin, eat a healthy portion of carbs and graft in two or three exercises geared around strength training, like squat, bench and deadlifts.

In fact, I have a great program I built that combines 5/3/1 w/ Y3T in an inverse relationship. The heavier you go on the Wendler program, the lighter you go on the rest of the workout, utilizing one of the three different training approaches of Y3T, plus a deload at the end of each month.
 
I believe the research suggests that high intensity, low rep stuff is more likely to increase testosterone as part of a complicated mess of adaptations to frying the CNS. I would agree here.

Among other things, I would use insulin, eat a healthy portion of carbs and graft in two or three exercises geared around strength training, like squat, bench and deadlifts.

In fact, I have a great program I built that combines 5/3/1 w/ Y3T in an inverse relationship. The heavier you go on the Wendler program, the lighter you go on the rest of the workout, utilizing one of the three different training approaches of Y3T, plus a deload at the end of each month.

That sounds pretty legit!!!! Of course it would be coming from you. It's always nice to see a post from you brother!
 
No, you very specifically said singles were useless... I listed multiple reasons why they were not. I also listed multiple reasons why in the users scenario it could be more beneficial to do lower reps in the 3-5 rep range during PCT. Which you did not address or challenge, but came back with a more watered down response saying you aren't saying not to lift heavy, but reiterated that singles are truly useless... Now your response is more watered down, it is not even singles, we have gone more generic and said "Again (for the first time actually) I am saying that not burning your muscles is not gonna be more effective than high reps. Not saying to completely skip them."

You also specifically said that the burn and pump was what he wanted to go for to grow. Not true, that is just ONE of the aspects of training that can make you grow, however progressive overload is the most important factor in training to gain an adaptation. I know guys who have gotten huge off of nothing but 5 reps or below, and have never really worked for a pump, but they grow regardless due to consistent progressive overload...

So first low reps / singles were useless, now it is a much less committed low reps aren't gonna be more effective than feeling the burn and getting a pump... Seems at some point during all of this you would exercise some humility and just mention that you had not considered some of the other information and each principle of training has its place in hypertrophy accrual. However your pride isn't allowing it to the point you keep reinventing what it was you said to make each version less of a concrete statement. Pride is a mofo...

In an effort to get this back on track...With what has already been said regarding why it would be beneficial to change gears in PCT which was the last question he asked. Can you tell me why it would not be beneficial for him to change over to a higher intensity lower volume workout rather than staying high volume throughout PCT?

Read again its useless to only do It like that while high reps isn't for building muscle
 
Let me make sure I'm correct on "progressive overload" (PO), since that is the often cited key to muscle growth.

Is PO the concept of increasing in weight over time? Can we not stay in the 50-70% of 1RM range and still apply progressive increases in weight and TUT as we adapt? Isn't the constant increase in muscular stimulation, whether by weight or by TUT, a PO?

I say all this because we know that reducing resistance causes atrophy in muscular growth. From anecdotal standpoints, which are not useless, we can see that reducing the intensity by which our muscles have to work causes atrophy (think astronauts in space for months at a time) and we also see stuff like pole-jumpers & sprinters having massive thighs and calves, although neither do any significant weight training, rather, they constantly train their legs in those two ways - sprinting and jumping - but they aren't actually adding any weight to the resistance but rather TUT, or reps, if we translate that term over to how nuch time they are training and stimulating those muscles.

It's not complicated though. If you put your body in a persistent position of needing "more" - it will adapt. More TUT? More strength to perform the lift? It adapts by growing and increasing efficiency, usually at the same time if the diet allows for it.
 
Read again its useless to only do It like that while high reps isn't for building muscle

I read it correctly and still both statements you are making are not correct because they are too exclusive and absolute.

Singles alone can make you grow, and 200 reps per set can make you growl!!!! My problem isn't with the generalized information you are giving out, it is with you stating things in absolutes that are not correct... Not to be rude but it seems that you simply don't have enough of a grasp of biology to make those absolute statements... If you did when I challenged you with science you would have had some type of rebuttal. There have been too many strides in training research to ignore and simply go off of the 1970's base 8-15 reps for is the hypertrophy range plan if trying to be more efficient with gains. Will it work, yes, but there is more to it than just working. Ways it can be more efficient... Ways to train with more specificity...

I mean, I know you can still type a newsletter with a type writer, so you are not wrong in that regard. However that doesn't mean it's the best, or only way to get the job done...

Somewhere someone told you that singles were useless and high reps weren't for growth, and you adopted that belief... just because you adopted the belief doesn't make it correct.

Anyway, I am done, you obviously are not interested in broadening your knowledge base so I am not going to keep on

Invalid Link Removed



Let me make sure I'm correct on "progressive overload" (PO), since that is the often cited key to muscle growth.

Is PO the concept of increasing in weight over time? Can we not stay in the 50-70% of 1RM range and still apply progressive increases in weight and TUT as we adapt? Isn't the constant increase in muscular stimulation, whether by weight or by TUT, a PO?

I say all this because we know that reducing resistance causes atrophy in muscular growth. From anecdotal standpoints, which are not useless, we can see that reducing the intensity by which our muscles have to work causes atrophy (think astronauts in space for months at a time) and we also see stuff like pole-jumpers & sprinters having massive thighs and calves, although neither do any significant weight training, rather, they constantly train their legs in those two ways - sprinting and jumping - but they aren't actually adding any weight to the resistance but rather TUT, or reps, if we translate that term over to how nuch time they are training and stimulating those muscles.

It's not complicated though. If you put your body in a persistent position of needing "more" - it will adapt. More TUT? More strength to perform the lift? It adapts by growing and increasing efficiency, usually at the same time if the diet allows for it.

Yes, yes, and yes! However we also know that different stressors cause different types of adaptation, some more inline with energy systems within the muscle that add size via volume, and other stressors IE weight increases that tend to drive the growth of the contractile proteins. Obviously the best way to attack this is via multiple avenues.
 
Invalid Link Removed

Interesting chart, I like it, where is it from? It is missing what happens on reps 1-5 though, and I am sure we are not going to contest that there is no adaptation taking place with them. We all know that 5x5 is a very effective program for both strength and muscle gains.

Did you know that training to failure in any rep range causes growth, and to about the same degree across the rep ranges. Kind of interesting when you think about it. Apparently failure is the point where all crossover effects with regards to reps and weights kind of intersect, it is the great equalizer when it comes to rep ranges and % of 1RM.

What is interesting about it is how the things come together to end up being about the same. With lower rep higher intensity, their is greater mechanical tension but far less metabolic hypertrophy drivers. When training moderate reps and weights to failure the tension and the metabolic tend to even them out, and when training very high rep to failure the Metabolic is far higher, tension is far lower but the gains tend to equal out. Now lets not forget that regardless of how you go to failure the training stimulus there is that you asked the body to give it's all and work until the point it could not complete a rep successfully. That is the biggest driver of adaptation out of all of them. It ends up kind of evening all of the methods for hypertrophy out over the period of what it takes to get to failure...

That being said, only focusing on one of these ranges, or not including one of them would still be choosing to leave gains on the table...
 
Interesting chart, I like it, where is it from? It is missing what happens on reps 1-5 though, and I am sure we are not going to contest that there is no adaptation taking place with them. We all know that 5x5 is a very effective program for both strength and muscle gains.

Did you know that training to failure in any rep range causes growth, and to about the same degree across the rep ranges. Kind of interesting when you think about it. Apparently failure is the point where all crossover effects with regards to reps and weights kind of intersect, it is the great equalizer when it comes to rep ranges and % of 1RM.

What is interesting about it is how the things come together to end up being about the same. With lower rep higher intensity, their is greater mechanical tension but far less metabolic hypertrophy drivers. When training moderate reps and weights to failure the tension and the metabolic tend to even them out, and when training very high rep to failure the Metabolic is far higher, tension is far lower but the gains tend to equal out. Now lets not forget that regardless of how you go to failure the training stimulus there is that you asked the body to give it's all and work until the point it could not complete a rep successfully. That is the biggest driver of adaptation out of all of them. It ends up kind of evening all of the methods for hypertrophy out over the period of what it takes to get to failure...

That being said, only focusing on one of these ranges, or not including one of them would still be choosing to leave gains on the table...

I have no idea who produced that, so take that with a grain of salt....

I agree about 5x5.... plenty of guys have blown up on that.
 
No, you very specifically said singles were useless... I listed multiple reasons why they were not. I also listed multiple reasons why in the users scenario it could be more beneficial to do lower reps in the 3-5 rep range during PCT. Which you did not address or challenge, but came back with a more watered down response saying you aren't saying not to lift heavy, but reiterated that singles are truly useless... Now your response is more watered down, it is not even singles, we have gone more generic and said "Again (for the first time actually) I am saying that not burning your muscles is not gonna be more effective than high reps. Not saying to completely skip them."

You also specifically said that the burn and pump was what he wanted to go for to grow. Not true, that is just ONE of the aspects of training that can make you grow, however progressive overload is the most important factor in training to gain an adaptation. I know guys who have gotten huge off of nothing but 5 reps or below, and have never really worked for a pump, but they grow regardless due to consistent progressive overload...

So first low reps / singles were useless, now it is a much less committed low reps aren't gonna be more effective than feeling the burn and getting a pump... Seems at some point during all of this you would exercise some humility and just mention that you had not considered some of the other information and each principle of training has its place in hypertrophy accrual. However your pride isn't allowing it to the point you keep reinventing what it was you said to make each version less of a concrete statement. Pride is a mofo...

In an effort to get this back on track...With what has already been said regarding why it would be beneficial to change gears in PCT which was the last question he asked. Can you tell me why it would not be beneficial for him to change over to a higher intensity lower volume workout rather than staying high volume throughout PCT?
Its a waste MrKleen73 .
You will get sorefingers trying to explain it.
Can you imagine a world where singles were useless?
Or a max effort heavy day was less effective as a 70% day.
I use 70% to warm up or deload that's it.
I don't think this guy means to come off ignorant .......it just happens.
He needs to learn how to express his opinion without making it seem like a FACT.
 
As long as you're training hard and right and have your diet in order you can grow - regardless of how many reps you decide to do. But at the end of the day, unless you're a power lifter, the risk/reward for performing 1 rep maxes is just not favorable in my opinion.
 
As long as you're training hard and right and have your diet in order you can grow - regardless of how many reps you decide to do. But at the end of the day, unless you're a power lifter, the risk/reward for performing 1 rep maxes is just not favorable in my opinion.
Its your max.
It should be done properly.
I've never been hurt performing a max.
Heavy doubles at 90%
7 sets of 2 reps.
Bro if your not doing something like that once a week your missing out on some size.
 
As long as you're training hard and right and have your diet in order you can grow - regardless of how many reps you decide to do. But at the end of the day, unless you're a power lifter, the risk/reward for performing 1 rep maxes is just not favorable in my opinion.
Also max reps should be performed when the body is ready.
When not just muscles but tendons and CNS are ready also.
Muscles respond to stress.
Going heavy effects muscles differently than going moderate.
You need both
 
Also max reps should be performed when the body is ready.
When not just muscles but tendons and CNS are ready also.
Muscles respond to stress.
Going heavy effects muscles differently than going moderate.
You need both

I didn't say you can't go heavy but doing 1 rep max is a lot different than doing 5 reps. The reason I believe it is dangerous for 99% of the people is because you will often pick up a weight that is too heavy to perform with perfect form, and most people (whether you want to believe it or not) do not have the mental capability to drop the weight and break it down, but will rather cheat on the rep because they know that they can get the rep done with a little help. Even the most experienced of lifters have done this before. When I do a bench press my lower back is pressed flush against the seat with my abs engaged the entire time. When I do a 1 rep max, the chance of my lower back coming off of that bench increases.

Obviously I'm not saying that 1 rep maxes cannot be performed safely - of course they can be. But the human mind is very imperfect (especially when adrenaline is high), which increases the risk.
 
I didn't say you can't go heavy but doing 1 rep max is a lot different than doing 5 reps. The reason I believe it is dangerous for 99% of the people is because you will often pick up a weight that is too heavy to perform with perfect form, and most people (whether you want to believe it or not) do not have the mental capability to drop the weight and break it down, but will rather cheat on the rep because they know that they can get the rep done with a little help. Even the most experienced of lifters have done this before. When I do a bench press my lower back is pressed flush against the seat with my abs engaged the entire time. When I do a 1 rep max, the chance of my lower back coming off of that bench increases.

Obviously I'm not saying that 1 rep maxes cannot be performed safely - of course they can be. But the human mind is very imperfect (especially when adrenaline is high), which increases the risk.
Agree
Most often people max out ugly.
A max should only break form if the result will be an elite lift in a comp.
 
I didn't say you can't go heavy but doing 1 rep max is a lot different than doing 5 reps. The reason I believe it is dangerous for 99% of the people is because you will often pick up a weight that is too heavy to perform with perfect form, and most people (whether you want to believe it or not) do not have the mental capability to drop the weight and break it down, but will rather cheat on the rep because they know that they can get the rep done with a little help. Even the most experienced of lifters have done this before. When I do a bench press my lower back is pressed flush against the seat with my abs engaged the entire time. When I do a 1 rep max, the chance of my lower back coming off of that bench increases.

Obviously I'm not saying that 1 rep maxes cannot be performed safely - of course they can be. But the human mind is very imperfect (especially when adrenaline is high), which increases the risk.
Just like 8-12 range.
You should be screaming and approaching failure at 10 .
11th rep you barely made
12th you couldn't finish.
It should sound like your being tortured.
 
I didn't say you can't go heavy but doing 1 rep max is a lot different than doing 5 reps. The reason I believe it is dangerous for 99% of the people is because you will often pick up a weight that is too heavy to perform with perfect form, and most people (whether you want to believe it or not) do not have the mental capability to drop the weight and break it down, but will rather cheat on the rep because they know that they can get the rep done with a little help. Even the most experienced of lifters have done this before. When I do a bench press my lower back is pressed flush against the seat with my abs engaged the entire time. When I do a 1 rep max, the chance of my lower back coming off of that bench increases.

Obviously I'm not saying that 1 rep maxes cannot be performed safely - of course they can be. But the human mind is very imperfect (especially when adrenaline is high), which increases the risk.
Your lower back should NOT touch the bench when benching.
Bench press is a total upper body lift.
To be able to bench for 20 years you need a proper set up
 
I didn't say you can't go heavy but doing 1 rep max is a lot different than doing 5 reps. The reason I believe it is dangerous for 99% of the people is because you will often pick up a weight that is too heavy to perform with perfect form, and most people (whether you want to believe it or not) do not have the mental capability to drop the weight and break it down, but will rather cheat on the rep because they know that they can get the rep done with a little help. Even the most experienced of lifters have done this before. When I do a bench press my lower back is pressed flush against the seat with my abs engaged the entire time. When I do a 1 rep max, the chance of my lower back coming off of that bench increases.

Obviously I'm not saying that 1 rep maxes cannot be performed safely - of course they can be. But the human mind is very imperfect (especially when adrenaline is high), which increases the risk.
If you bench like that I would say avoid going over 80% at all cost.
 
Just like 8-12 range.
You should be screaming and approaching failure at 10 .
11th rep you barely made
12th you couldn't finish.
It should sound like your being tortured.

Oh yeah! That's one of the things I love about HIT. I know it's not "heavy" lifting, but the muscles can stay under tension for up to 2 minutes per set and they just start screaming from the pain. It's all about that last rep or 2 that you squeeze in at the end - those are the reps that count. A good way to see if someone is really hitting failure or if they are just "faking it" is by throwing a heart rate monitor on them. Once you get to failure you'll see your heart rate spike.

But yeah, 1 rep maxes can be performed. Personally, I would only recommend it to experienced lifters because it's a serious lift that requires someone to be smart and humble - traits that come with experience.
 
Your lower back should NOT touch the bench when benching.
Bench press is a total upper body lift.
To be able to bench for 20 years you need a proper set up

I know... I've debated people on this for years. I am in the extremely small minority when it comes to benching form. I have absolutely no problem retracting my shoulders and activating my pecs while keeping my lower back flush against the bench. Granted, this only works for 8-12 rep range training and not advisable for heavy sets.

I had hurt my lower back a while back so I am a paranoid freak about keeping my abs engaged on all exercises, which is how I think I ended up that way on bench press. And let's be honest... If I'm doing bench press with my lower back flush then by the 8 -10 rep it will start to come off slightly as I'm reaching failure. Exercises like pec flies you have to arch in order to even activate your pecs though.
 
The reason to max out one rep is mostly due to strenght to increase your max and your all around weights during he workouts. Staying at the same weights forever won't make you increase muscle. However to go to the gym every day just to lift one or two lifts on each machine is a waste of time for the purpose of bodybuilding.
 
I know... I've debated people on this for years. I am in the extremely small minority when it comes to benching form. I have absolutely no problem retracting my shoulders and activating my pecs while keeping my lower back flush against the bench. Granted, this only works for 8-12 rep range training and not advisable for heavy sets.

I had hurt my lower back a while back so I am a paranoid freak about keeping my abs engaged on all exercises, which is how I think I ended up that way on bench press. And let's be honest... If I'm doing bench press with my lower back flush then by the 8 -10 rep it will start to come off slightly as I'm reaching failure. Exercises like pec flies you have to arch in order to even activate your pecs though.

The problem there is with what benching like that will end up doing to your shoulders over time. I think you are also not realizing that your abs are MOST DEFINITELY ENGAGED in a strong arch. To lock the arch in you must flex your abs as hard as you can. Also you are in a more dangerous position regarding your back. It is not natural to have the small of your back touching while laying down with your legs down. Now if you were benching with your legs on the bench sure that would make sense but then that is just ill advised. Your spine has a natural S curve, and you are forcing it out of it's natural and strongest shape when you force the lower back down.

I would challenge you to try to learn a good arch, it does not have to be exaggerated like a lot of power lifters that you see in pictures. A lot of the arches you see people do are to limit ROM more than to brace and be put in a strong and stable position. Some of those arches are actually not that healthy either. I don't recommend you exaggerate your arch, just find your strongest point where everything is solid. I think at the highest part of my arch my lower back MIGHT be 2-3 inches of the bench at best, but it is locked in like a brick and everything in my core is SAFE!!! It ain't moving!!! That is what you want for spine safety.

Just the fact that you mention your press gets unstable and you need to arch to train in the 8-10 range, says that it is actually not a stable or good set up for you. It is your body trying to make you move naturally, safely and efficiently. You are just fighting it out of fear of the injury but I promise what you are doing is actually less safe for your back and is creating a weak link in the chain. You have an area of the back that is weaker, and you are avoiding strengthening it out of fear but weakness is what is going to get it injured in the long run.
 
The problem there is with what benching like that will end up doing to your shoulders over time. I think you are also not realizing that your abs are MOST DEFINITELY ENGAGED in a strong arch. To lock the arch in you must flex your abs as hard as you can. Also you are in a more dangerous position regarding your back. It is not natural to have the small of your back touching while laying down with your legs down. Now if you were benching with your legs on the bench sure that would make sense but then that is just ill advised. Your spine has a natural S curve, and you are forcing it out of it's natural and strongest shape when you force the lower back down.

I would challenge you to try to learn a good arch, it does not have to be exaggerated like a lot of power lifters that you see in pictures. A lot of the arches you see people do are to limit ROM more than to brace and be put in a strong and stable position. Some of those arches are actually not that healthy either. I don't recommend you exaggerate your arch, just find your strongest point where everything is solid. I think at the highest part of my arch my lower back MIGHT be 2-3 inches of the bench at best, but it is locked in like a brick and everything in my core is SAFE!!! It ain't moving!!! That is what you want for spine safety.

Just the fact that you mention your press gets unstable and you need to arch to train in the 8-10 range, says that it is actually not a stable or good set up for you. It is your body trying to make you move naturally, safely and efficiently. You are just fighting it out of fear of the injury but I promise what you are doing is actually less safe for your back and is creating a weak link in the chain. You have an area of the back that is weaker, and you are avoiding strengthening it out of fear but weakness is what is going to get it injured in the long run.
Well said
You can squat deadlift and bench press untill your in the grave if you do it right.
People have PHD credentials that have studied the body and how to properly load it with weight.
 
I would love to see spend 8 weeks getting into a powerful safe position on that bench.
You would get so much more out of "benchday"
Also I bench 3xs a weeks.
 
Back
Top