according to the some of the vets on this board your muscles only grow when you rep a weight that is 70% or more of your one rep max...
(alot of people reading this are like yea.....and.........)
so if you hit chest/tri's and back/bi's, your tri's and bi's will NOT grow from the direct work!!!
your bi's and tri's will not be able to lift as much in their fatigued state. soooo, i guess the above split is useless, either that or maybe the percent of weight really isn't all that important. which would make drop sets and other tactics worth a discussion
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how lifting light weights that are useless for hypertrophy under normal circumstances suddenly become useful when you're fatigued? Tell me how they will do anything more than burn calories and accumulate more lactic acid which only serves to make you weaker during the workout.
In other words, if I lift 75% of my max for 10-12 reps and then immediately pick up a 50% weight and go to failure, what are the benefits?
VERY SIMPLE QUESTION. Please give me ONE GOOD REASON why I shouldn't do another set with moderate-to-heavy weight instead (i.e. >70%)?
posts like this.
i mean, i have never heard anyone say don't work back/bi's, chest/tri's because your arms are fatigued and can't lift enough weight to trigger hypertrophy.
Location: Texas: swimming in a way that you can't detect...
Age: 21
Stats: 5'5", 231 lbs
Posts: 39,846
BodyBlog Entries: 0
BodyPoints: 47972
Rep Power: 5403
I actually think that fatiguind them help them grow. At least to some extent. It's all about muscle contractions. Enough contraction to tear down some muscle tissue and stimulate growth is what's needed. You could go to failure with a lighter weight which means you are contracting hard at the end or you could use heavier weight and so you force yourself to contract your muscle harder in order to move the weight.
I lift light to moderate weight and sometimes go heavier but this is basically one of the many reasons that the mind to muscle connection is very important.
People say that lifting below the 70% rep max doesn't do anything. Solution: rest a little longer if fatique bothers you that much, then when you get around to doing your sets, go to failure on one or two. Problem solved.
I actually think that fatiguind them help them grow. At least to some extent. It's all about muscle contractions. Enough contraction to tear down some muscle tissue and stimulate growth is what's needed. You could go to failure with a lighter weight which means you are contracting hard at the end or you could use heavier weight and so you force yourself to contract your muscle harder in order to move the weight.
I lift light to moderate weight and sometimes go heavier but this is basically one of the many reasons that the mind to muscle connection is very important.
People say that lifting below the 70% rep max doesn't do anything. Solution: rest a little longer if fatique bothers you that much, then when you get around to doing your sets, go to failure on one or two. Problem solved.
When you go to failure: It's not the muscles that are failing per se, it's the nervous system. Your muscle fibers are already contracting, and all of them are taking turns doing it to try to get the job done. As you approach failure, the nervous system is forced to increase the turnover rate, meaning that the fibers must contract more frequently despite having less and less energy. This is not a good thing; it does not result in greater hypertrophy or strength, only in a tired nervous system and eventually overtraining.
__________________
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
When you go to failure: It's not the muscles that are failing per se, it's the nervous system. Your muscle fibers are already contracting, and all of them are taking turns doing it to try to get the job done. As you approach failure, the nervous system is forced to increase the turnover rate, meaning that the fibers must contract more frequently despite having less and less energy. This is not a good thing; it does not result in greater hypertrophy or strength, only in a tired nervous system and eventually overtraining.
does this relate to chest/tri and back/bi workout? ie: lifting in fatigued state.
Location: Texas: swimming in a way that you can't detect...
Age: 21
Stats: 5'5", 231 lbs
Posts: 39,846
BodyBlog Entries: 0
BodyPoints: 47972
Rep Power: 5403
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhuddy
This is not a good thing; it does not result in greater hypertrophy or strength, only in a tired nervous system and eventually overtraining.
Only leads to overtraining if you don't take planned rest periods. I take two weeks off for every two months. Some say it's too much but it's just right if you go to failure often. I'm just going by what works for me and what has worked for a lot of my friends. This is how I have made the most of my gains, so I would beg to differ when you say that it doesn't do anything for hypertrophy or strength.
I realize that there are more conventional ways to gain size and strength, but they aren't the only ways.
according to the some of the vets on this board your muscles only grow when you rep a weight that is 70% or more of your one rep max...
(alot of people reading this are like yea.....and.........)
so if you hit chest/tri's and back/bi's, your tri's and bi's will NOT grow from the direct work!!!
your bi's and tri's will not be able to lift as much in their fatigued state. soooo, i guess the above split is useless, either that or maybe the percent of weight really isn't all that important. which would make drop sets and other tactics worth a discussion
discuss
(there is some sarcasm yes)
well, typically if you lift with a load that is approximately 80% of your 1rm, you will be firing essentially all of your motor units. this type of training focuses on fast twitch fibers and the resulting muscle growth is myofibrillar hypertrophy. this type of muscle fiber is refered to as dense and accounts for the majority of the muscle in your body, approx 90-95%. It makes sense then to base *most* of your training around lifting with 80% percent of your 1rm.
typically, when most include some isolated arm work at the end of a routine it is mainly done for higher reps which in turn results in the overall load being a smaller percentage of your 1rm for said exercise. this results mainly in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy which is glycogen and fluid based. essentially, giving you somewhat of a semi pumped look all the time. it accounts for only around 5-10 percent of your muscle mass, but it seems like alot more than that. this is partially why direct arm work can have such a huge impact on the size and muscular appearance of your arms. (only using arms for an example)
btw, this is my main source for this information among many other sources i have read on similar subjects. one specific source is my gf's kinesiology textbook and notes from her exercise physiology class.
since i have included direct arm work and some added isolation for other bodyparts as well, i have seen and experienced the results of the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy which has been enduced from said training. so at least for me personally, i believe the above based on the theory and information that i have read as well as my own experiences.
To answer the question: For these reasons, i find limited high rep (10-15 reps) work and direct training for neglected bodyparts necessary for a person who wants a balanced BB'er-esque physique.
__________________
"when its too tough for them, its just right for us" - Marv Levy
Only leads to overtraining if you don't take planned rest periods. I take two weeks off for every two months. Some say it's too much but it's just right if you go to failure often. I'm just going by what works for me and what has worked for a lot of my friends. This is how I have made the most of my gains, so I would beg to differ when you say that it doesn't do anything for hypertrophy or strength.
I realize that there are more conventional ways to gain size and strength, but they aren't the only ways.
Don't you think that's a bit illogical? You train to failure, pound your CNS into the ground, and then have to take off a whopping 2 out of every 8 weeks. Why not train smarter and only have to take off 1 week every 3 months?
And of course training results in hypertrophy and strength; it's only the failure part that does nothing. The part before it is what's giving you results.
__________________
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
Don't you think that's a bit illogical? You train to failure, pound your CNS into the ground, and then have to take off a whopping 2 out of every 8 weeks. Why not train smarter and only have to take off 1 week every 3 months?
And of course training results in hypertrophy and strength; it's only the failure part that does nothing. The part before it is what's giving you results.
as W8 would say.....rate coding. i agree that training to failure on a regular basis seems to hinder more than help with your gains. i agree with rock 100%
__________________
"when its too tough for them, its just right for us" - Marv Levy
Location: Texas: swimming in a way that you can't detect...
Age: 21
Stats: 5'5", 231 lbs
Posts: 39,846
BodyBlog Entries: 0
BodyPoints: 47972
Rep Power: 5403
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhuddy
Don't you think that's a bit illogical? You train to failure, pound your CNS into the ground, and then have to take off a whopping 2 out of every 8 weeks. Why not train smarter and only have to take off 1 week every 3 months?
Yes, I used to think that but my results quickly suffered. Now I train to failure for one or two sets per exercise or sometimes for two exercises per workout as well I use descending sets. I take two weeks off every two or three months.
I've tried many training methods and this is what has worked best for me. I also periodize my rep range, and even training style but this is what I use the most becaue it gives me the best results. Trust me, if other methods worked better for me then I would use them but this is what works best for me. I admit though, I'm glad that it's what works best for me because I honestly love pushing my limits and getting an awesome pump every workout.
according to the some of the vets on this board your muscles only grow when you rep a weight that is 70% or more of your one rep max...
(alot of people reading this are like yea.....and.........)
Looks like I've hit a nerve Jeff. Beats me why you didn't just bump that thread instead of creating a new one to call me out on it.
If you're getting results lifting light weights when you're fatigued or otherwise, by all means keep doing it. It makes no difference to my life. Everything I've read on how muscles work combined with my own experience lifting weights tells me it's a waste of time (unless you've got a hardon for temporary effects like burn/pump/etc. over lasting results like building muscle and strength) so I won't be doing triple dropset kickbacks anytime soon (this is Tyrbo's cue to come in looking for the strawman). However, you seem to have completely missed the point I was making in that thread.
Bodybuilders typically use 5-12RM (approx. 70-85%) resistance for a reason. It works. It's heavy enough to provide adequate tension for hypertrophy and it allows for enough repetitions and sets in a workout to provide adequate volume (mechanical work). I'm sticking with the energetic theory of hypertrophy as explained in Zatsiorsky's book since it's the most plausible.
I put up a pretty straightforward example. a) doing 16 sets with 70%+, or b) 12 sets with 70%+ and 4 drop sets on the final set of each exercise with less than 70%. Explain to me the benefits of B over A?
If the goal is hypertrophy, please give me one good reason why anyone should lift a light weight (i.e. <65-70% of 1RM)--in the context of drop sets or otherwise--when they could instead rest and do another MEDIUM-HEAVY set (i.e. 70-85%)? Very simple question I'd like you to answer for me.
dominik dominik. no nerves were hit. this is just a friendly discussion, i didn't mean for it to look like i was calling you out. sorry. i started the new thread to get new faces in here, nothing more than that.....i am no e-thug lol.
i have a hard time getting people to understand what i am trying to say at times, but i will give it a shot. i will try to give real world type examples to help me get this across. if i wanted to hit close grip bench press for a good set of 6-8, i would probably put around 205 or so on the bar. if i tried to put 205 on the bar after my chest workout....it would probably be pretty close to my one rep max, that is if i could get it at all.
now i know this is flawed, but lets look at the one rep max calculator for this example:
205x8 gives me around a 255lb max. 70% of this would be 172lbs, so anywhere from 172lbs right up to 255 is my desired weight according to you guys. after my chest workout, lets just say that i can press 205 for 1 rep. 70% of 205 would be 144lbs.
so basically 70% of my one rep max is 172, but after my chest workout.....70% of my one rep max drops down to 144. in your respected opinion, do you think the fatigued set will not induce as much growth?
imo, like i said in the other thread....it isn't the weight your muscles are lifting, but what your muscles go through while lifting the weight.
-both weights are at the 70% rep range, so why would the muscles experience anything differently?
now i know this is flawed, but lets look at the one rep max calculator for this example:
205x8 gives me around a 255lb max. 70% of this would be 172lbs, so anywhere from 172lbs right up to 255 is my desired weight according to you guys. after my chest workout, lets just say that i can press 205 for 1 rep. 70% of 205 would be 144lbs.
so basically 70% of my one rep max is 172, but after my chest workout.....70% of my one rep max drops down to 144. in your respected opinion, do you think the fatigued set will not induce as much growth?
Given your 1RM, no, I don't think 144 would be good for anything but warmups, dynamic effort work, or endurance training. If you want to put on muscle, use weights that feel reasonably heavy (or take you to failure) for 5-12 reps when you're fresh. If you want to throw in some high reps after your heavier work sets (i.e. 3-8 reps), rest, drop back to around 70%, and pump out 10-12 reps. Or if you want to keep pushing yourself with the same weight, either rest and do another set, or try rest pausing.
Quote:
imo, like i said in the other thread....it isn't the weight your muscles are lifting, but what your muscles go through while lifting the weight.
-both weights are at the 70% rep range, so why would the muscles experience anything differently?
That's where I beg to differ. Being fatigued does not change the tension of the weight that's in your hands. If a 10lb DB feels light for curls, that's because your muscles have long since adapted to the small amount of tension they exert on them. They're heavy for my girlfriend, but light for you and me. Now, after 2 or 3 drop sets to failure, guess what, those funky little chrome 10 pounders suddenly feel like 50lbs or more. This is where the definition of "intensity" becomes murky for the casual lifter. The perceived effort is sky high, yet the real intensity, % of 1RM, is hovering just above sea level. This is where you need to be very clear about what you're doing.
What I'm saying is if you stick to weights that are in an effective range, what I'd say is no lower than 65% and primarily around 70-85%, you can be sure you're lifting at a high enough intensity to stimulate growth regardless of whether you're fatigued or not. That way you don't have to worry about fatigue temporarily blurring the lines. I mean pushups are difficult immediately after a heavy set of bench but being around 2/3 of your body weight, for most of us it is useless resistance for building muscle. Don't allow fatigue to cloud your judgement with respect to INTENSITY.
What I'm saying is if you stick to weights that are in an effective range, what I'd say is no lower than 65% and primarily around 70-85%, you can be sure you're lifting at a high enough intensity to stimulate growth regardless of whether you're fatigued or not.
hard to disagree with that.
as for a chest/tri, back/bi.....would you say that is a no go, since your 1 rep max is now too low to train with a decent weight?
as for a chest/tri, back/bi.....would you say that is a no go, since your 1 rep max is now too low to train with a decent weight?
I'd say if you're going to use it anywhere, arms would probably be the best choice since they're a small muscle group and 60-70% might still be effective if you take it close to failure. So I'd save it for isos that target smaller muscle groups like curls, extensions, lateral raises, etc. For everything else, I really think you're a lot better off resting and doing another medium-heavy set or using rest pausing.
I mean at the end of the workout if you've done X number of sets over 70% with a reasonable amount of volume, you know you've forced those muscles to work hard. On the other hand, if you spend 1/3 of it doing drop sets, you've done a bunch of light sets that felt heavy because you were fatigued, and IMO that's time that could have been much better spent lifting medium-heavy weights.
I'd say if you're going to use it anywhere, arms would probably be the best choice since they're a small muscle group and 60-70% might still be effective if you take it close to failure. So I'd save it for isos that target smaller muscle groups like curls, extensions, lateral raises, etc. For everything else, I really think you're a lot better off resting and doing another medium-heavy set or using rest pausing.
I mean at the end of the workout if you've done X number of sets over 70% with a reasonable amount of volume, you know you've forced those muscles to work hard. On the other hand, if you spend 1/3 of it doing drop sets, you've done a bunch of light sets that felt heavy because you were fatigued, and IMO that's time that could have been much better spent lifting medium-heavy weights.
what do you refer to as it? "i'd say if you're going to use *IT* anywhere, arms would....." are we on seperate pages here? i am talking about straight reps with straight sets at the moment. you will be significantly weaker after heavy chest, so for discussions sake......in your opinion....."or anyone else that wants to chime in," is it worthless to hit tri's after chest? no razzle dazzle, just x sets for 6-12 reps.....with significantly less weight than your *fresh* 70%.......
?
dominik dominik. no nerves were hit. this is just a friendly discussion, i didn't mean for it to look like i was calling you out. sorry. i started the new thread to get new faces in here, nothing more than that.....i am no e-thug lol.
i have a hard time getting people to understand what i am trying to say at times, but i will give it a shot. i will try to give real world type examples to help me get this across. if i wanted to hit close grip bench press for a good set of 6-8, i would probably put around 205 or so on the bar. if i tried to put 205 on the bar after my chest workout....it would probably be pretty close to my one rep max, that is if i could get it at all.
now i know this is flawed, but lets look at the one rep max calculator for this example:
205x8 gives me around a 255lb max. 70% of this would be 172lbs, so anywhere from 172lbs right up to 255 is my desired weight according to you guys. after my chest workout, lets just say that i can press 205 for 1 rep. 70% of 205 would be 144lbs.
so basically 70% of my one rep max is 172, but after my chest workout.....70% of my one rep max drops down to 144. in your respected opinion, do you think the fatigued set will not induce as much growth?
imo, like i said in the other thread....it isn't the weight your muscles are lifting, but what your muscles go through while lifting the weight.
-both weights are at the 70% rep range, so why would the muscles experience anything differently?
ok, i hope i came through clear...
And thanks for clearing up the reason heavy CGBP is not a great idea AFTER a chest workout. I thought we were all familiar with the concept that simply piling on one compound after another was not a good way of putting a program together.
Now let's say I do tricep pushdowns instead. Fresh I can maybe get 140x6, a 163 max effort. Last time I did these after a chest workout I got 120x6, just a little over 75% of the "true" max.
The explanation behind this is simple. It's an isolation exercise, my strength just won't drop the same way it would on deadlift or squat or even CGBP; the nature of the movement doesn't put enough stress on my body to do that. Now disregarding the fact that nobody would care enough to count the percentages on tricep pushdows, it still works.
The percentage dom is talking about isn't gospel. But it is a very effective guideline almost anyone can take advantage of.
And thanks for clearing up the reason heavy CGBP is not a great idea AFTER a chest workout. I thought we were all familiar with the concept that simply piling on one compound after another was not a good way of putting a program together.
I see how much of this makes sense, but many strength programs advocate using as many compounds as possible and you will almost always see weighted dips after chest, or close grip bench after chest. Maybe what you're refering to applies mainly to higher volume work? If we're talking about a strength program where you cut the sets and reps right back, you still think CGBP or Dips after Chest is a bad idea? Maybe by "chest" you mean multiple chest exercises not just one? Or, maybe what you're saying only really comes into effect when you're pushing big numbers on compounds??
thanks for the advise i have been following a trainers set up through a gym,but have noticed that my bi-tricepts are very tied by the the time i get to them,trying to look for a way to do this stuff so i can equally train everything
I only use light weights after I finish my working sets to get blood in muscle, but I don't go to failure. I think using light weights can only really be used to help start the recovery process not actually work your muscle in an affective way. The reason why some people like the idea of going to failure is probably because they get more pump.
If you're getting results lifting light weights when you're fatigued or otherwise, by all means keep doing it. It makes no difference to my life. Everything I've read on how muscles work combined with my own experience lifting weights tells me it's a waste of time (unless you've got a hardon for temporary effects like burn/pump/etc. over lasting results like building muscle and strength) so I won't be doing triple dropset kickbacks anytime soon (this is Tyrbo's cue to come in looking for the strawman). However, you seem to have completely missed the point I was making in that thread.
Bodybuilders typically use 5-12RM (approx. 70-85%) resistance for a reason. It works. It's heavy enough to provide adequate tension for hypertrophy and it allows for enough repetitions and sets in a workout to provide adequate volume (mechanical work). I'm sticking with the energetic theory of hypertrophy as explained in Zatsiorsky's book since it's the most plausible.
I put up a pretty straightforward example. a) doing 16 sets with 70%+, or b) 12 sets with 70%+ and 4 drop sets on the final set of each exercise with less than 70%. Explain to me the benefits of B over A?
If the goal is hypertrophy, please give me one good reason why anyone should lift a light weight (i.e. <65-70% of 1RM)--in the context of drop sets or otherwise--when they could instead rest and do another MEDIUM-HEAVY set (i.e. 70-85%)? Very simple question I'd like you to answer for me.
Zatsiorsky just got served. Look at dat dere Munzer rep out on an empty hack squat.
__________________
"It seems like your goal is not to help."
I've noticed a slow down in the gains made in my arms doing bi's after back and tri's after chest. Maybe 30% of what they would gain when separated. I wouldn't say that routine is useless. If you are the type where your arms tend to grow a lot quicker than other parts, than this sort of routine can be beneficial in some aspects.
Otherwise I would think a separate arm workout is what most people would look at.
Bench: 145kg (320lbs) x 1 <<< NEW PR August 4th, 2009
Deadlift: 205kg (452lbs) x 1 <<< NEW PR October 20, 2009
ATG Squat: 150kg (331bs) x 1 <<< NEW PR October 20, 2009
Linear Mode
