Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31
    Registered User zerohourxx's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2012
    Location: North Carolina, United States
    Age: 37
    Posts: 100
    Rep Power: 215
    zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    zerohourxx is offline
    Originally Posted by guyver79 View Post
    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?
    I think you're drawing too many conclusions out of a single study. The results are interesting, but are really just the basis for further investigation, not necessarily a model on which you should immediately begin to base your training.

    For one thing, the study doesn't indicate in any way that training to failure was what caused the increased protein synthesis - if that were the case, the 90FAIL group and the 30FAIL group both would have seen increased protein synthesis, which they didn't. This is a case where correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Only the 30FAIL group saw the increase, which leads me to hypothesize that the overall increase in volume, and therefore time under tension, could have been the reason for the increased protein synthesis, not the failure itself.

    That's not all that surprising, for what it's worth. Keep in mind that these are, according to the study itself, young, active men who had been performing lower body resistance exercises for at minimum 6 months prior to the study, meaning they were at least somewhat trained. At that point, it's entirely possible that they would require more volume than a pure novice to encourage maximum hypertrophy. The fact that they responded best to higher volume workloads and increased time under tension doesn't mean that these findings can be applied to the entire population. Let's also keep in mind that 4 sets of 5 reps on a leg press machine vs 4 sets of 25 reps on a leg press machine doesn't in any way mimic a real life training scenario, where the trainee is generally either doing multiple exercises to stimulate either a single muscle group or several. It's impossible to know from this study how rates of protein synthesis would vary between treatments when the subjects are performing an hour or more of resistance training several times per week.

    That said, I'm not saying that the findings of the study are invalid, only that they raise more questions rather than provide concrete answers. Until there's more data available on the subject, I'm inclined to stick with the prevailing wisdom in bodybuilding that maintaining progressive overload is the most important factor in stimulating strength and size gains, with the number of sets/reps performed being a relevant factor that is best left to personal preference.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #32
    Bootless Errand ironwill2008's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Posts: 85,695
    Rep Power: 1679789
    ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz
    ironwill2008 is offline
    Originally Posted by guyver79 View Post
    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.
    Are you implying that Platz used light weight when he trained?

    Or that he, and the other pro bodybuilders you mentioned, weren't supremely genetically gifted, and wouldn't have gained on anything they did in the gym?

    Or that any of them weren't chemically assisted?







    Originally Posted by zerohourxx View Post
    ... you're drawing too many conclusions out of a single study.
    ^^^^ This.
    No brain, no gain.

    "The fitness and nutrition world is a breeding ground for obsessive-compulsive behavior. The irony is that many of the things people worry about have no impact on results either way, and therefore aren't worth an ounce of concern."--Alan Aragon

    Where the mind goes, the body follows.

    Ironwill Gym:
    https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388


    Ironwill2008 Journal:
    https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
    Reply With Quote

  3. #33
    Registered User guyver79's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,897
    Rep Power: 8123
    guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000)
    guyver79 is offline
    Originally Posted by ironwill2008 View Post
    Are you implying that Platz used light weight when he trained?

    Or that he, and the other pro bodybuilders you mentioned, weren't supremely genetically gifted, and wouldn't have gained on anything they did in the gym?

    Or that any of them weren't chemically assisted?
    Heavy is relative.

    Are you implying that you can't grow off high reps to failure?

    Why can't you?

    And what will certain 'chemicals' change in your physiology that you will suddenly be able to grow of higher reps?

    Hypothetically if you start of benching 135lb for three sets of 20+ reps and work your way up over a few years to 315lbs for three sets of 20+ reps, are you saying you wouldn't be any bigger?

    Again heavy is relative.

    And for the record Luke Wood said all he got from heavy low rep benching was a torn pec, it was his worst bodypart but after training with milos and not benching more than 2 to 2 and a half plates aside for 15-20 reps he brought it up to his best body part, this is a guy that had already turned pro, can't think of many pro than can make that much improvement.

    But I'm just using this as an example, there are no real absolutes in bb'ing.
    Reply With Quote

  4. #34
    Registered User guyver79's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,897
    Rep Power: 8123
    guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000)
    guyver79 is offline
    Originally Posted by zerohourxx View Post
    I think you're drawing too many conclusions out of a single study. The results are interesting, but are really just the basis for further investigation, not necessarily a model on which you should immediately begin to base your training.

    For one thing, the study doesn't indicate in any way that training to failure was what caused the increased protein synthesis - if that were the case, the 90FAIL group and the 30FAIL group both would have seen increased protein synthesis, which they didn't. This is a case where correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Only the 30FAIL group saw the increase, which leads me to hypothesize that the overall increase in volume, and therefore time under tension, could have been the reason for the increased protein synthesis, not the failure itself.

    That's not all that surprising, for what it's worth. Keep in mind that these are, according to the study itself, young, active men who had been performing lower body resistance exercises for at minimum 6 months prior to the study, meaning they were at least somewhat trained. At that point, it's entirely possible that they would require more volume than a pure novice to encourage maximum hypertrophy. The fact that they responded best to higher volume workloads and increased time under tension doesn't mean that these findings can be applied to the entire population. Let's also keep in mind that 4 sets of 5 reps on a leg press machine vs 4 sets of 25 reps on a leg press machine doesn't in any way mimic a real life training scenario, where the trainee is generally either doing multiple exercises to stimulate either a single muscle group or several. It's impossible to know from this study how rates of protein synthesis would vary between treatments when the subjects are performing an hour or more of resistance training several times per week.

    That said, I'm not saying that the findings of the study are invalid, only that they raise more questions rather than provide concrete answers. Until there's more data available on the subject, I'm inclined to stick with the prevailing wisdom in bodybuilding that maintaining progressive overload is the most important factor in stimulating strength and size gains, with the number of sets/reps performed being a relevant factor that is best left to personal preference.
    Unless I've read it wrong i though the difference between the 90fail group and the 30wm was failure? And 30fail was superior to both? (in terms of being elevated for longer at least)

    But you'll find most bodybuilders will use higher reps and sets and overall volume + some sort intensifier then look to progressively overload from there, myself included.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #35
    Bootless Errand ironwill2008's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Posts: 85,695
    Rep Power: 1679789
    ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz
    ironwill2008 is offline
    I prefer to remain in reality when it comes to bodybuilding training and nutrition. As I've already stated at least once, the majority trains the way they do because that's what works.

    I don't know any natty bodybuilders who use 30-rep sets.






    Pro bodybuilders make poor examples in threads such as this. As a group, they have a huge advantage over the rest of us, and it's not just chemicals.
    No brain, no gain.

    "The fitness and nutrition world is a breeding ground for obsessive-compulsive behavior. The irony is that many of the things people worry about have no impact on results either way, and therefore aren't worth an ounce of concern."--Alan Aragon

    Where the mind goes, the body follows.

    Ironwill Gym:
    https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388


    Ironwill2008 Journal:
    https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
    Reply With Quote

  6. #36
    Strength Enthusiast Retardo-pex's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2001
    Location: Boston, Massachusettes
    Posts: 7,084
    Rep Power: 8237
    Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000) Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000) Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000) Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000) Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000) Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000) Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000) Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000) Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000) Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000) Retardo-pex is a name known to all. (+5000)
    Retardo-pex is offline
    Originally Posted by TheRedHerring View Post
    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.
    That's not really true at all, they simply would most likely never be at the same level of "show ready" conditioning. If you have a natty bodybuilder who competes at 185 come contest time and you pair him up against a 220 natty powerlifter there are most likely more similarities then differences.

    For sure you will see balance difference when comparing muscle group to muscle group due to the intention of each's training, but chances are the off season bodybuilder would be 210-220 and much stornger then at show time, while if the 220 powerlifter cut to comparable body fat levels, they would look great by most standards ( just probably not if you happen to be a bodybuilding judge)

    There are always pictures posted of lean powerlifters and lean olympic lifters that completely go against what you are claiming. Again, there will be some glaring differences if you feel the need to nitpick, but that is because the actual training goals are varied. If a bodybuilder's bicep is lagging, they might take time away form a superior looking group to work on the underrepresented one. A weightlifter or powerlifter would not care as long as it didn't negatively affect their lifts.

    Generalizations like this tend to come from people who have only been to commerical gyms, are young and inexperienced or simply unreasonably biased.
    Reply With Quote

  7. #37
    Registered User guyver79's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,897
    Rep Power: 8123
    guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000)
    guyver79 is offline
    Originally Posted by ironwill2008 View Post
    I prefer to remain in reality when it comes to bodybuilding training and nutrition. As I've already stated at least once, the majority trains the way they do because that's what works.

    I don't know any natty bodybuilders who use 30-rep sets.
    Cleveland Thomas competes as a natural (inb4 not natty ect.) so now you do!

    And johnny fuller competed in the ifbb and in the Olympia, he was known for 6x32 reps, he was also known for sleeping in bin bags and eating whole raw onions too!

    But anyway this is how Cleveland trains:

    http://stek.org/interviews/bodybuild...ass-interview/

    Cleveland Thomas: My off-season is usually only for about 2 1/2 months, part of November, December and January. During that period my diet is slightly loose but not too loose. For instance, my breads will be whole wheat. My lean meats will be anything but fried. I tend to limit my carbs year round, but they are increased a little around the holidays. My weight is usually around 196 lbs in November, and around 200 to 205 lbs true in January.

    In the off-season I will do cardio only when I see my muscles start to look distorted. I tend to do a visual of my body every training session. When February hits I’m cold turkey with my diet. It’s back to business. As for my training, I simply lower my reps while keeping my same pyramid philosophy in reps going. For example, during the in-season, (let’s take chest) I would start at 30 reps, next set 25, 20 and 15 reps for my last set while increasing my lbs to the max for each set.

    Now in the off-season I would start at 20 reps and pyramid down by 5 lbs each set. I do at least 5 exercises for each body part except for arms and quads. For my arms I do eight, I perform 4 for biceps an 4 for triceps. For my quads, I do 4. During the in-season workout my reps start at 60, pyramiding down to 20, decreasing by 10 reps for each set. For example, on the leg press I perform 60, 50, 40, 30 and 20. 20 reps would be my last set. Most other leg exercises starts at 30 reps down by 5.

    I can’t say enough about the high rep method.

    Muscle & Strength: The use of high reps is a fairly unique approach. Have you always used higher rep sets, why do you feel they work so well for you, and do you recommend this approach for beginning or intermediate lifters?

    Cleveland Thomas: I can’t say enough about the high rep method. Some may even think it’s overtraining. But I think it’s just an excuse not to put the smack down on those quads. The first thing I think about when I hear someone say overtraining is that they are a lazy, non serious, casual lifter. Sorry that’s my opinion guys. Back in the mid 90′s, not knowing the complete benefits from the high rep method, me and an old training partner by the name of Ira Wenze started doing higher reps just to intensify our workouts more.

    Since I have gotten older the high rep method has become very valuable. Just a few reasons why: ultimate pumps on the quads, intensity (with two to three minute rest period), easy on the joints, quality muscle building, muscle endurance and especially great for toning (pre-contest). This process is excellent for all training levels, beginner, intermediate, advanced up to the professional level. Make sure you put the maximum amount of weight for each set.
    Reply With Quote

  8. #38
    Registered User zerohourxx's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2012
    Location: North Carolina, United States
    Age: 37
    Posts: 100
    Rep Power: 215
    zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50) zerohourxx will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    zerohourxx is offline
    Originally Posted by guyver79 View Post
    Unless I've read it wrong i though the difference between the 90fail group and the 30wm was failure? And 30fail was superior to both? (in terms of being elevated for longer at least)

    But you'll find most bodybuilders will use higher reps and sets and overall volume + some sort intensifier then look to progressively overload from there, myself included.
    No, the difference between the 90FAIL group and the 30WM group is that 90FAIL used 90% of their 1RM to failure, and the 30WM group did the same amount of "external work," IE moved an equivalent amount of weight, using 30% of their 1RM. Chances are the subjects in the 30WM group weren't anywhere near failure (since they did ~10 fewer reps per set than the 30FAIL group). Suffice, to say, that's not realistic in the slightest when it comes to real-life training, since any decent program with a progression scheme is upping the weights every other day, or every week at least, and thus pushing very close to failure on a regular basis.

    Regardless, none of this changes my original point, which is that the study on its own provides only a basis for more research. It certainly didn't elicit any sort of empirical truth that can be extrapolated over the entire bodybuilding community.

    Originally Posted by guyver79 View Post
    Cleveland Thomas competes as a natural (inb4 not natty ect.) so now you do!

    And johnny fuller competed in the ifbb and in the Olympia, he was known for 6x32 reps, he was also known for sleeping in bin bags and eating whole raw onions too!

    But anyway this is how Cleveland trains:

    http://stek.org/interviews/bodybuild...ass-interview/

    ...
    There may be some bodybuilders out there who ascribe to high-rep training methods, but ironwill's post was clearly hyperbole - the fact is that while Cleveland Thomas may train like that, most bodybuilders don't. And if Cleveland Thomas and others who used high-rep training were getting a significant competitive advantage by using it, more bodybuilders would be doing it. Frankly, while I was interested to read the study you posted earlier, posting an interview from Muscle & Fitness to back up the idea that high-volume training is more effective than other approaches is as close to "broscience" as it's gotten in this thread so far. Just because something worked for one (genetically gifted, massively experienced, possibly enhanced, world-class athlete) bodybuilder doesn't automatically mean it's optimal, or that everyone should train that way.

    I think this thread has pretty much gone off the rails at this point, to be honest. OP's question was what programs aren't "broscience," and I think that's pretty much been answered. At this point, it's just you pushing high volume training as superior to other, more traditional methods, when there's really no significant body of proof to back up that assertion. You seem to be under the misapprehension that people are saying that it doesn't work AT ALL, which isn't the case - clearly it can work, and some people like yourself prefer it, which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But there's no objective evidence that it's more or less effective than any other method, or if there is, I certainly haven't seen it. Thus, there's no point continuing with this argument.

    /thread?
    Reply With Quote

  9. #39
    Registered User guyver79's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,897
    Rep Power: 8123
    guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000) guyver79 is a name known to all. (+5000)
    guyver79 is offline
    At no point did i say that's it's the be all end all of training in fact I've repeatedly said that, i got good results off fairly low reps max ot style and yates style blood and guts has always been the basis for my training, OP asked a question i answered with what i deemed was not "broscience" as in one of the very few studies on hypertrophy.

    What the phuck was i supposed to reply with "Big Dave in the gym says......."

    If anything the study back up what most successful bodybuilders do and that's a mix higher reps (1-5 considered low) and intensity (as effort) and time under tension.

    Then matey boy points out he cant think of any natural bodybuilders that train that way, i point out Cleveland Thomas trains with very high reps then i get accused of touting broscience.

    WTF?

    Can't phuckin win, so i tell you what, why don't you answer the op and post the results you got from that training method?
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts