EXPERT? Training volume is all that matterS?????

[Nosferatu187]

High intensity + High Volume = Optimal

lol those 2 aren't compatible.

do most of you even lift seriously cause some of the stuff I read here is pure nonsense.

[Nosferatu187]

Its all about mind muscle connection you *******s. You do the maximum reps with maximum weight you can do while engaging the actual muscle you want to work.

If you do face pulls, you dont move your arms, you first activate the rear delts. You then completley squeeze them at the end. You then release to eccentric with the rear delts. You arms are just along for the ride.

you can connect your mind with your balls if you want not going to help you you need to lift heavy weight to get bigger. (at some point)

[PKneyr]

What?

14+ reps is still with a hypertrophy range, 20-30 is still within that range with diminishing returns the higher the reps get, in fact according to "studies" that might be all the way up to 100-150 reps

But studies aside in real life people train in higher rep ranges and get results, there's not a magical shut off point there strength/hypertrophy/endurance rep ranges is some bullchit pavel tsatsouline pulled out of his ass years ago.

You recruit more fast twitch fibers the heavier the weight, do you agree?
If you are doing 14+ reps you are using light weight, thus recruiting less muscle fibers. The whole point of hypertrophy is to increase muscle fibers in size, and which are the fibers which increase the most in size? Yes, fast twitch fibers.


The above alone should settle the argument which rep scheme is more optimal. I cringe when I see natties doing the slow controlled 15+ reps, that is endurance ****. It works for juicers only. You need to lift heavy and as explosive as you can.

You can grow using any rep schemes, there is a superior rep range though. i myself lift in the 8-10, 12-15 rep ranges because I am a pussy. srs

[Rugger7]

lift until you're really tired, eat until you're really full, sleep until you're really rested.

[solidus2k3]

why not both?

[John4789]

Higher volume will only work if you keep adding volume. Which at some point becomes impossible for anyone with normal time constraints and recovery capacity.

BRB 10x10

At some point you have to increase frequency to drive your weekly volume up.

So yes volume matters, as does frequency and intensity. But so does progression. If you ain't progressing, you ain't progressing nomsayin?

[veggie530]

There are sections where people actually know what they're talking about when it comes to lifting. The misc, on a whole, isn't one of them. Hit the exercise/workout program section.

Higher volume will only work if you keep adding volume. Which at some point becomes impossible for anyone with normal time constraints and recovery capacity.

BRB 10x10

At some point you have to increase frequency to drive your weekly volume up.

So yes volume matters, as does frequency and intensity. But so does progression. If you ain't progressing, you ain't progressing nomsayin?

Ah, there are exceptions! +1

[W1LLW]

been coasting off bbc genetics for the longest and just doing bodybuilding workouts even for sports. now that i'm late 20's that is all starting to slow down so i've switched from my lazy bro split to more progressive volume training for rugby, particularly the "West Side for Skinny Bastards" program. I'm far from a skinny bastard, but it appears to be ideal for an already thick brah looking to be more explosive/powerful.

lift until you're really tired, eat until you're really full, sleep until you're really rested.

ghey. this sounds like some sht posted on the animalpak forums circa 2007.

[TheWeeknd4Ever]

heavy weight + high volume + consistency = profit

[lntense]

But who was intensity?


135 isn't going to cause any significant muscular damage to my chest. Good warm up though

[R5GT]

brb curling a pencil and benching a broom stick

[guyver79]

You recruit more fast twitch fibers the heavier the weight, do you agree?
If you are doing 14+ reps you are using light weight, thus recruiting less muscle fibers. The whole point of hypertrophy is to increase muscle fibers in size, and which are the fibers which increase the most in size? Yes, fast twitch fibers.


The above alone should settle the argument which rep scheme is more optimal. I cringe when I see natties doing the slow controlled 15+ reps, that is endurance ****. It works for juicers only. You need to lift heavy and as explosive as you can.

You can grow using any rep schemes, there is a superior rep range though. i myself lift in the 8-10, 12-15 rep ranges because I am a pussy. srs

14+ reps you'll recruit all the fibres eventually anyway as long as you train to failure.

[Nosferatu187]

14+ reps you'll recruit all the fibres eventually anyway as long as you train to failure.

yup recent studies back this up.

[BroHusky]

you can connect your mind with your balls if you want not going to help you you need to lift heavy weight to get bigger. (at some point)

You need to lift the maximum amount of weight you can with 100% MMC. And actually, increase MMC will make you much stronger.

Also, ppl have underdeveloped grip strength. Work on that and I promise you get stronger.

[Retoaded]

but who was intensity?

[Nosferatu187]

You need to lift the maximum amount of weight you can with 100% MMC. And actually, increase MMC will make you much stronger.

Also, ppl have underdeveloped grip strength. Work on that and I promise you get stronger.

fukk outte here pls

[BroHusky]

fukk outte here pls

Have had better gains in past 2 yrs than my whole life with this philosophy. So you get the fukk outte here cuck.

[midcoastking33]

high volume is trendy right now

[arn710]

lol those 2 aren't compatible.

do most of you even lift seriously cause some of the stuff I read here is pure nonsense.

High intensity and high volume are doable. You just have to keep the frequency low. Think once a week bro-split. That's the only way to really make gains on a bro-split

fukk outte here pls

He's a terrible poster. Best to just ignore

[Nosferatu187]

high volume sacrifices intensity.
intensity sacrifices high volume.

and to respond to your bro split comment I don't know anything about that stuff I think in movements pulling pushing lowerbody lifts

I don't think in body parts "today I am going to train my back or chest etc."

[guyver79]

yup recent studies back this up.

The latest being 3 x 20rm curls with 30 sec rest between sets resulted in more arm growth than lower reps.

So not dissimilar to "pump" or back of sets that people have been doing for decades.

As well as other "high rep" studies showing that higher reps result in higher protein synthesis for longer and lower myostatin (Not necessarily leading to real world gains btw, but it's interesting none the less)

I don't particular like the whole "show me the study" attitude from the so called "evidence based fitness" crowd btw, it's just the other poster was hinting towards that there was some Scientific evidence backing what he was saying.

[arn710]

high volume sacrifices intensity.
intensity sacrifices high volume.

and to respond to your bro split comment I don't know anything about that stuff I think in movements pulling pushing lowerbody lifts

I don't think in body parts "today I am going to train my back or chest etc."

For someone that admittedly doesn't know anything, you sure do speak in a lot of absolutes

It is definitely possible to train with high intensity and high volume. Just because you can't doesn't mean others can't. I think you're confusing intensity with load

[Nosferatu187]

@guyver

dunno what you trying to say here but most of the lifting stuff has been known since the 70's there's been a ton of broscience mixed in there that people used to believe back in the day.

studies only confirm what most people suspected

the way I see it is:

you can't get bigger without getting stronger, you can't get stronger without getting bigger.

[Duckliver]

Diet>kool aid>how you train




Stop the cope

Stop the broscience

Lift the iron, accept the results based on the above

[juvefan]

Lol maybe 3x14x180 would be better for growth. 135 is too low if you're doing 3x8x225

[guyver79]

@guyver

dunno what you trying to say here but most of the lifting stuff has been known since the 70's there's been a ton of broscience mixed in there that people used to believe back in the day.

studies only confirm what most people suspected

the way I see it is:

you can't get bigger without getting stronger, you can't get stronger without getting bigger.

I was agreeing with you agreeing with me!

I just didn't want to sound like one of the "Show me the study" douches.

[BroHusky]

High intensity and high volume are doable. You just have to keep the frequency low. Think once a week bro-split. That's the only way to really make gains on a bro-split



He's a terrible poster. Best to just ignore

You're fat af and mentally challenged, bro. Giving out simply awful advice if you think a natty grows best working their muscles once per week, LOL. I hit each muscle every other day. GOAT gains of my life.

You know more than the GOAT Arnie.

“simply concentrating on the target musculature resulted (according to EMG research) in greater activation of this muscle.“
http://www.schwarzenegger.com/fitnes...-not-movements

https://physicalculturestudy.com/201...le-connection/ -"“The muscles to the strain by concentrating the mind and will-power upon the manipulation of the weights […] exercise should be systematic, persistent, and thorough.” Sandow aka early GOAT natty BB'er.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/arno...rinciples.html - train for pump, need elite MMC. Prob something your simple mind does not have.

fat fuk, keep training for your strength while I feel great and look better.

[Agentdark45]

ITT: a bunch of DYEL's chatting complete and utter broscience.

[Kaduceus]

someone please explain this for me

I'll do 3 months of 5/3/1

Then 3 months of 10/10/10

And don't know which one is better

FUARK

[Zwicker]

I was agreeing with you agreeing with me!

I just didn't want to sound like one of the "Show me the study" douches.

Can you link the study, though? (srs) Genuinely interested in strength and conditioning and I frequently look over the strength and conditioning journals for my CSCS.

Last I knew, based on studies/evidence, hypertrophy has been shown to be most efficient at loads between 65-80% 1RM for a rep range of 6-12 reps. Ie. moderate loads at a moderate rep range. There are now studies suggesting that high motor neuron recruitment/sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is similar regardless of the load used assuming sets are done to failure (ie 9+ RPE)? That is interesting, but I would like to see a study or two... Not that studies definitively prove anything, but I prefer some evidence aside from bros talking science.