every program i have seen somebody claims it to be based on "broscience."
Which ones would you consider "broscience" free?
Printable View
every program i have seen somebody claims it to be based on "broscience."
Which ones would you consider "broscience" free?
Supplementation and nutrition is more "broscience" 'd than training. Just train how you want to.
[QUOTE=beeeefcake;1055473171]every program i have seen somebody claims it to be based on "broscience."
Which ones would you consider "broscience" free?[/QUOTE]
Just about any of the routines or programs that you find listed in the stickies at the top of this forum will be top-notch. It's still up to you though, to match up your own experience level with the appropriate program. IOW, a multiple-day split, even though listed in the stickies here, will probably not be appropriate for a beginner. Conversely, an excellent beginner program wouldn't be optimal for an intermediate -level trainee.
In contrast, the majority of the "programs" currently featured in the 'articles' section of this site are little more than gimmicks, highlighted with buzzwords and catch phrases to capture the eye of the noob, and then subtly (or not so subtly) drain his wallet of cash in return for long lists of mostly useless supplements.
let me go with example.. Shortcut to size. He is a doctor and claims it is real science.
Funny i was thinking this the other day, what would a purely scientific approach to training look like?
Every body part 2 x week 3 sets of high reps taken to failure?
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20300012/[/url]
[QUOTE=beeeefcake;1055480991]let me go with example.. [b]Shortcut[/b] to size. He is a doctor and claims it is real science.[/QUOTE]
Anything that requires marketing buzzwords like "shortcut" is not a real program. Its a sales pitch.
[QUOTE=beeeefcake;1055480991]let me go with example.. Shortcut to size. He is a doctor and claims it is real science.[/QUOTE]
That particular program has been lampooned multiple times in this forum already. A forum search will bring up dozens of threads on stoppani's many 'programs.'
[QUOTE=guyver79;1055483791]Funny i was thinking this the other day, what would a purely scientific approach to training look like?
Every body part 2 x week 3 sets of high reps taken to failure?
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20300012/[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20300012/[/url]
In conclusion, multiple sets are associated with 40% greater hypertrophy-related ESs than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects.[/QUOTE]
^^^^ This is one of the few things that any study has been able to actually pin down in regards to [i]training.[/i] There are far too many variables involved in trying to study any other parameters of weight lifting.
All of the other more-important factors, such as 'failure or not,' or 'how often to train a body part' can either be answered by common sense, putting in some gym time, or better-answered by empirical evidence.
[QUOTE=ironwill2008;1055493371]That particular program has been lampooned multiple times in this forum already. A forum search will bring up dozens of threads on stoppani's many 'programs.'
^^^^ This is one of the few things that any study has been able to actually pin down in regards to [i]training.[/i] There are far too many variables involved in trying to study any other parameters of weight lifting.
All of the other more-important factors, such as 'failure or not,' or 'how often to train a body part' can either be answered by common sense, putting in some gym time, or better-answered by empirical evidence.[/QUOTE]
Again just from a purely scientific view yes train to failure.
By the way, I'm in no way suggesting any of this is the be all end all in hypertrophy, like you said other variables really need to be taken into account.
[url]http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/low-load-high-volume-resistance-exercise-stimulates-muscle-protein-synthesis-more-high-load-low-volu/[/url]
Abstract
Background: We aimed to determine the effect of resistance exercise intensity 1 repetition maximum1RM) and volume on muscle protein synthesis, anabolic signaling, and myogenic gene expression. Methodology/Principal Findings: Fifteen men (211 years; BMI=24.10.8 kg/m2) performed 4 sets of unilateral leg extension exercise at different exercise loads and/or volumes: 90% of repetition maximum (1RM) until volitional failure (90FAIL), 30% 1RM work-matched to 90%FAIL (30WM), or 30% 1RM performed until volitional failure (30FAIL). Infusion of ring-13C6 phenylalanine with biopsies was used to measure rates of mixed (MIX), myofibrillar (MYO), and sarcoplasmic (SARC) protein synthesis at rest, and 4 h and 24 h after exercise. Exercise at 30WM induced a significant increase above rest in MIX (121%) and MYO (87%) protein synthesis at 4 h post-exercise and but at 24 h in the MIX only. The increase in the rate of protein synthesis in MIX and MYO at 4 h post-exercise with 90FAIL and 30FAIL was greater than 30WM, with no difference between these conditions; however, MYO remained elevated (199%) above rest at 24 h only in 30FAIL. There was a significant increase in AktSer473 at 24h in all conditions (P=0.023) and mTORSer2448 phosphorylation at 4 h post-exercise (P=0.025). Phosporylation of Erk1/2Tyr202/204, p70S6KThr389, and 4E-BP1Thr37/46 increased significantly (P<0.05) only in the 30FAIL condition at 4 h post-exercise, whereas, 4E-BP1Thr37/46 phosphorylation was greater 24 h after exercise than at rest in both 90FAIL (237%) and 30FAIL (312%) conditions. Pax7 mRNA expression increased at 24 h post-exercise (P=0.02) regardless of condition. The mRNA expression of MyoD and myogenin were consistently elevated in the 30FAIL condition. Conclusions/Significance: These results suggest that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes.
There's another study on the same page as your link that states one set is equal to multiple sets for upper body hypertrophy, while multiple sets produced more hypertrophy in the lower body.
go figure... You can find a study to justify just about anything you want. Most use untrained subjects which isn't optimal for real-life comparisons.
Find a program that fits your schedule, ie: three times a week, or a split. Find a basic program which is designed to increase strength through a wide variety of rep ranges and uses basic, compound exercises and remember to eat more than you burn if you want to gain some size.
[QUOTE=guyver79;1055496921]Again just from a purely scientific view yes train to failure.
[/QUOTE]
There is no requirement to train to 'failure;" all that's required is progression of weight and/or reps lifted with good form over time.
[QUOTE=ironwill2008;1055500461]There is no requirement to train to 'failure;" all that's required is progression of weight and/or reps lifted with good form over time.[/QUOTE]
qft
you can make a ton of gains and lessen the risk of injury or burnout this way.
[QUOTE=ironwill2008;1055500461]There is no requirement to train to 'failure;" all that's required is progression of weight and/or reps lifted with good form over time.[/QUOTE]
I'm not disagreeing, but according to the mcmaster 30fail study, failure with light weights is superior to sub failure work matched sets.
Now i don't know, this is just speculation, maybe there's an evolved defence mechanism that when something is easy enough (i.e. the work matched sets)"because muscle is metabolically expensive maybe it has to be traumatic enough (i.e. failure) for the body grow more tissue to make future 'traumatic' bouts easier.
Cliffs-the body stops you from 'accidently' growing new metabolically expensive tissue.
Again I'm just playing a bit of devils advocate, just after a good serious discussion.
Because obviously there's countless powerlifters and bodybuilders that have built muscle through sub failure sets, so who knows!
It definitely can't be a black and white answer it had to take in individual needs and be applied accordingly.
^^^ It isn't rocket science really. It's effective, failure insure maximum effort. You can stop 1 rep only short of failure, or failure on the last set depending on how much you can handle it, but going to failure on all of your sets reduces the amount of weight you use and puts you at greater risk for overexertion and injury. And when it comes to bodybuilding you want to lift more and you want to stay injury free.
[QUOTE=guyver79;1055509091]I'm not disagreeing, but according to the mcmaster 30fail study, failure with light weights is superior to sub failure work matched sets.[/QUOTE]
That's not how I read it; the study results "suggest" that might be the case, and that makes a big difference in the practicality of any such study results.
[QUOTE]
These results [b]suggest[/b] that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes. [/QUOTE]
Personally, I put more faith in empirical evidence when discussing [i]training.[/i] IOW, whatever the vast majority has always done in the past to build mass/strength is going to be the best method for the vast majority to always use. IOW, if doing light sets to failure was optimal, the vast majority would already be training that way.
[QUOTE=guyver79;1055496921]Again just from a purely scientific view yes train to failure.
By the way, I'm in no way suggesting any of this is the be all end all in hypertrophy, like you said other variables really need to be taken into account.
[url]http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/low-load-high-volume-resistance-exercise-stimulates-muscle-protein-synthesis-more-high-load-low-volu/[/url]
[/quote]
I wonder what the effects on long term health would be to train to failure as a regular part of a program versus every workout versus occasionally (perhaps once every 4 or 6 weeks). I would think occasionally working to failure would be the most beneficial, for recovery purposes.
I guess the term "broscience" can be applied to any advice that is claimed to be evidence based when in reality it's not.
Some broscience are just Chinese whispers. There is a grain of truth to it but it has been taken completely out of context and is no longer a valid truth. These people honestly believe what they have been told and think they are being helpful telling others.
Others are blatant bullsh!t with an ulterior motive, most commonly to make money from poor suckers who don't know any better. These people most commonly know they are bullsh!tting but don't give a f`uck because money is money.
I' am doing this routine: Push,legs,pull,rest,repeat. And its by far the best routine with the biggest results I have done...
Literally millions of competing weightlifters and powerlifters don't train to deliberate failure. They only go all out on the platform.
The ones who don't restrict calories to stay in a lower weight class tend to move up SEVERAL WEIGHT CLASSES, they gain so much muscle relentlessly over a long time. In spite of mostly low reps, there is enough volume and frequency to do that.
You can safely train to real failure on a lot of little stuff like curls, and on a lot of machine stuff like leg press.
You can't safely train to real failure all the time on squats, deads, goodmornings, a lot of things that make you more awesome.
If you like the idea of training to failure, but you don't want to stall and regress, or injure yourself, just do:
AMRAP, as many reps as possible......in decent form for your top set.
When you know the next rep ain't going up in decent form, terminate the set.
Then you can either:
1. take several deep breaths and finish the set rest-pause style,
or
2. punish yourself by NOT adding 5 lbs next time, until you do get at least your scheduled reps:).
Guys do AMRAP all the time for their top set of the main movement on 5 3 1, without problems.
You'll be "training to failure", but without all the downsides of training to real failure with(Arthur Jones putting a gun to your head) HIT.
[QUOTE=jgreystoke;1055746781]Literally millions of competing weightlifters and powerlifters don't train to deliberate failure. They only go all out on the platform.
The ones who don't restrict calories to stay in a lower weight class tend to move up SEVERAL WEIGHT CLASSES, they gain so much muscle relentlessly over a long time. In spite of mostly low reps, there is enough volume and frequency to do that. [/QUOTE]
Those ones get very fat, which is ok coz it works well for their goals. The ones that stay lean look good compared to Joe Average but nowhere near the sort of muscle that bodybuilders would get (even the ones as natty as olympic athletes lol). Given the amount of time they spend training (i.e full time athletes), the sort of muscle that lean olympic lifters end up with is grossly inefficient, low reps simply aren't as effective.
I always use and recommend programs that have been proven effective for whatever goal I am seeking. This means programs designed by Mark Rippetoe, Jim Wendler, Joe Defranco, Dave Tate, Stew Smith, and a couple of others that I trust. For the most part it irratates me when people post random made up poorly designed programs when there are already proven effective programs to choose from.
[QUOTE=ironwill2008;1055500461]There is no requirement to train to 'failure;" all that's required is progression of weight and/or reps lifted with good form over time.[/QUOTE]
this, if the program utilizes progressive overload to get better over time its off to a good start, after that its about finding the volume/style of training that suits you best.
Generally speaking, any program devised by a guy who at one point owned a 1000 lb. squat (eg., Jim Wendler) is not going to be broscience material.
[QUOTE=LPAthickness;1055804471]Generally speaking, any program devised by a guy who at one point owned a 1000 lb. squat (eg., Jim Wendler) is not going to be broscience material.[/QUOTE]That's how I see it as well. Plus the fact that he (Wendler and a few other similar of his caliber) spends all day researching, training, and testing out programs so I don't have to. I can just pick which of them meets my specific goal and then just do it. Saves a lot of time and headaches.
[QUOTE=TheRedHerring;1055754141]Given the amount of time they spend training (i.e full time athletes), the sort of muscle that lean olympic lifters end up with is grossly inefficient, low reps simply aren't as effective.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I agree with that.
The sort of muscle they end up with makes them very strong/powerful individuals.
[QUOTE=ironwill2008;1055525411]That's not how I read it; the study results "suggest" that might be the case, and that makes a big difference in the practicality of any such study results.
Personally, I put more faith in empirical evidence when discussing [i]training.[/i] IOW, whatever the vast majority has always done in the past to build mass/strength is going to be the best method for the vast majority to always use. IOW, if doing light sets to failure was optimal, the vast majority would already be training that way.[/QUOTE]
Ummmm........ read it again.
"protein synthesis in MIX and MYO at 4 h post-exercise with 90FAIL and 30FAIL was greater than 30WM, with no difference between these conditions; however, MYO remained elevated (199%) above rest at 24 h only in 30FAIL."
" Conclusions/Significance: These results suggest that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes. "
At the same time I agree with you, I'm just merely answering OP's question. just a couple of weeks ago I called out Ian Mccarthy and questioned him on how he can claim someone is "Doing it wrong" when quite clearly the people he's calling out are doing something right! (Thread got deleted btw)
Also the funny thing is one of the guys that did the study said that it's great news for older people that can't train that heavy, because just for chits and giggles I've thrown in the 3 sets of high rep sets to failure after reading that study and they are incredibly painful, I can't imagine some old dear grinding out 70+ reps with balls out intensity!
But in terms of hypertrophy a mixture of higher reps and volume and intensity (as in effort) along with progression seems to be the general consensus for the vast majority of trainees, I think it might have been Milos that said it years ago along the lines of "chances are you're somewhere in the middle of the mentzer extremely low volume and Arnolds extremely high volume."
[QUOTE=-JR;1055605291]I wonder what the effects on long term health would be to train to failure as a regular part of a program versus every workout versus occasionally (perhaps once every 4 or 6 weeks). I would think occasionally working to failure would be the most beneficial, for recovery purposes.[/QUOTE]
DC and Yates both recommend backing of the effort for a couple of weeks before going all out again.
[QUOTE=guyver79;1055925511]Ummmm........ read it again.
"protein synthesis in MIX and MYO at 4 h post-exercise with 90FAIL and 30FAIL was greater than 30WM, with no difference between these conditions; however, MYO remained elevated (199%) above rest at 24 h only in 30FAIL."
" Conclusions/Significance: [b]These results suggest[/b] that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes. "
[/QUOTE]
No matter how many times I read it, it still says [b]"suggest."[/b] That's far from being conclusive.
And, yet again, if doing high-rep sets with light weight to failure worked best for building mass, that's how everybody would have been training for years now.
I don't see [I]any [/I] bodybuilders training that way.
[QUOTE=TheRedHerring;1055754141]Those ones get very fat, which is ok coz it works well for their goals. The ones that stay lean look good compared to Joe Average but nowhere near the sort of muscle that bodybuilders would get (even the ones as natty as olympic athletes lol). Given the amount of time they spend training (i.e full time athletes), the sort of muscle that lean olympic lifters end up with is grossly inefficient, low reps simply aren't as effective.[/QUOTE]
Certainly not as efficient. But the results for weightlifters and raw powerlifters are usually better than most of the guys here in terms of gaining enough muscle to move up several weight classes. Obviously gaining a ton of strength for big movements, even for low reps, and eating enough to grow, can still work for muscle gain.
Unfortunately geared powerlifters, especially at the top end, are discovering that gaining a lot of fat helps them get more out of a more extreme suit/shirt without bothering to get stronger:(.
So many guys on efficient programs where switch them up after a few weeks. Or they are afraid of squats, deads, cleans, presses, and anything that doesn't have you sitting or lying down. Or they are afraid of eating enough to grow. Or some combination of the above types of sabotage.
[QUOTE=ironwill2008;1055938041]No matter how many times I read it, it still says [b]"suggest."[/b] That's far from being conclusive.
And, yet again, if doing high-rep sets with light weight to failure worked best for building mass, that's how everybody would have been training for years now.
I don't see [I]any [/I] bodybuilders training that way.[/QUOTE]
Again I'm not saying its the be all end all holy grail secret of training, it's interesting and it's one of many answers to op's question.
Ok then the study 'suggests' that higher reps to failure results in nearly 200% more protein synthesis than lower non failure reps.
Alot of strength coaches will get athletes to perform low rep fairly low volume workouts staying well clear of failure with the hope that the athlete AVOIDS hypertrophy to stay within a certain weight class, so just as an idea, maybe the opposite, to a point is true FOR hypertrophy?
And as for high rep sets not working, many bodybuilders and in particular Tom Platz would go that high for legs and the late luke wood improved his physique considerably after lightening up and going higher in reps, Paul borresen, Ian Harrison and Simon Cohen would do 50-60 rep pre exhaust sets.
Also it's still somewhat anaerobic, it's not a 1000 reps for a 1000 sets!
Heavy is relative if you can progress doing 20+ reps what does it matter? Why wouldn't you grow?
[QUOTE=TheRedHerring;1055754141]Those ones get very fat, which is ok coz it works well for their goals. The ones that stay lean look good compared to Joe Average but nowhere near the sort of muscle that bodybuilders would get (even the ones as natty as olympic athletes lol). Given the amount of time they spend training (i.e full time athletes), the sort of muscle that lean olympic lifters end up with is grossly inefficient, low reps simply aren't as effective.[/QUOTE]
Dmitry Klokov. Evgeny Chigishev.
The reason those in weightclasses are smaller is that the naturally huge guys generally go to the super heavy class. I agree that low reps are not as efficient at building muscle, but you still do build considerable mass unless you restrict yourself to a weightclass. Klokov used to train at a lean 117kgs and cut down for comps (literally loose muscle).. imagine if he were to allow himself to keep growing in size? I think a small amount of high rep training for getting a bit more of the asthetic muscle combined with a weightlifting program & some heavy benching would be extremely good for asthetics..