RANT: R.I.P. Tyrbolift

[Orlando1234977]

It's sad/fun how this stuff stays with you. I think I remember more about people on this page than I do people IRL. For example, I say "tripeps" still. I don't think I've ever laughed as hard as I laughed at some of the stuff that went on on this site.

Good stuff. Good to see you.

Are you still training 1 set to failure.. like a real man?

[GeneralSerpant]

Are you still training 1 set to failure.. like a real man?

You mean per exercise or per muscle group?

[PapaBurgandy]

You mean per exercise or per muscle group?

Feeder sets of 2-3 leading into one all out set is pretty sweet, IME.

[GeneralSerpant]

Feeder sets of 2-3 leading into one all out set is pretty sweet, IME.

I should learn to fire up sooner, I usually like to do that with at least 4-5 sets. I mainly just like pacing it with something that's heavy but way controllable at the start, then watching my energy levels go over the hill as the sets go on.

[Defiant1]

Are you still training 1 set to failure.. like a real man?

Yep. Once every 3 weeks to avoid overtraining.

[Orlando1234977]

You mean per exercise or per muscle group?

Per torso.

[GeneralSerpant]

I don't know. Often I will block out my sets and will choose a rep range multiplied by x sets and it's not too uncommon to time failure near the last rep.

[W8isGR8]

So all the literature seems to confirm that hypertrophy can happen no matter what rep range provided you take sets to failure*

So while a set of 20 reps can make you grow as well as a set of 6 reps, I feel that it's too hard to take high rep sets to true failure.

[W8isGR8]

It's sad/fun how this stuff stays with you. I think I remember more about people on this page than I do people IRL. For example, I say "tripeps" still. I don't think I've ever laughed as hard as I laughed at some of the stuff that went on on this site.

Good stuff. Good to see you.

Yeah, it blows my mind when I think I've been off and on here for 15 years. Crazy

[GeneralSerpant]

So all the literature seems to confirm that hypertrophy can happen no matter what rep range provided you take sets to failure*

So while a set of 20 reps can make you grow as well as a set of 6 reps, I feel that it's too hard to take high rep sets to true failure.

For isolations or compounds?

[W8isGR8]

For isolations or compounds?

Whichever, but it's easier to take iso to failure with high reps.

[GeneralSerpant]

Whichever, but it's easier to take iso to failure with high reps.

Just thinking of all those synergist, stabilizer, and dynamic stabilizer muscles that all get worked from the coordination strength that low reps require on compounds tho.

[Orlando1234977]

So all the literature seems to confirm that hypertrophy can happen no matter what rep range provided you take sets to failure*

So while a set of 20 reps can make you grow as well as a set of 6 reps, I feel that it's too hard to take high rep sets to true failure.

For size I feel the moderate rep ranges are slightly better than lower mostly because you're able to recruit and exhaust a larger spectrum of fibers with different endurance tolerances. I'm in month 5 of my muscle memory revenge tour which is been a lot of fun trying out different training protocols during a time when getting bigger and stronger happens week by week. Although, of course, what works now may not be optimal when I'm back to full strength. But for now, muscle memory is beating old age.

[Defiant1]

So all the literature seems to confirm that hypertrophy can happen no matter what rep range provided you take sets to failure*

So while a set of 20 reps can make you grow as well as a set of 6 reps, I feel that it's too hard to take high rep sets to true failure.

"Failure" is often used in studies because it is probably the most objective way to measure relative effort. But your body is not going to give you the same adaptation to 20 rep sets that it does to 6 rep sets, especially as you advance.

I would say the take home is "you can build size with many rep ranges as long as you train relatively hard (twss), but the more you advance the more specific your adaptation will be".

Those "30% of 1RM build size" studies were done on beginners. I'm not saying that they DON'T work (at all), I'm just saying that the adaptation is going to be different depending on rep range. And there isn't some magic thing that happens at "failure" (Mentzer talking about "the growth signal" is cringe) vs a few reps from it, except it amps the stress up on your nervous system.

As you train more and more towards all out effort, nerve cells become damaged. Nerve cells take WAY longer to recover than muscle cells. And your brain does not like nervous system damage-your CNS is your bodies number one priority in terms of survival. So what does your brain do? Convinces your body not to do it any more.

What works (like Mel Siff said), is a combination of effort AND volume. That sounds simple, but the trick is, you can train with a higher volume with just a slight reduction in effort/set. If there is a secret, finding your personal Effort/Volume sweet spot is it. All the bull**** systems, philosophies, dogma, is really about that.

[Defiant1]

For size I feel the moderate rep ranges are slightly better than lower mostly because you're able to recruit and exhaust a larger spectrum of fibers with different endurance tolerances. I'm in month 5 of my muscle memory revenge tour which is been a lot of fun trying out different training protocols during a time when getting bigger and stronger happens week by week. Although, of course, what works now may not be optimal when I'm back to full strength. But for now, muscle memory is beating old age.

That to me points to training at multiple rep ranges, not just using higher reps for everything. There is a difference. The Size principle, the way some people quote it, would imply that by training to failure with 20 reps would make you a great powerlifter. That, by the way, is EXACTLY what the take home of HIT/Jones/Nautilus was in the 70s. Slow speed of movement, done to failure, would develop all aspects of the muscle due to "orderly recruitment/fatigue". Which we all know is bull****. Or should know.

[Defiant1]

Also-in "grinds my gears" news. I have suffered in silence about "TUT". That is the dumbest metric for anything and is a great example of how an attempt at description takes on a life of it's own, kind of like "BMI". Has almost zero relevance in any particular situation. Only useful in the most general sense.

I see a lot of smart people using the term, but it is useless and means nothing from a practical sense. It reminds me of people using lifted "total poundage" in the context of bodybuilding training. Again, means mostly nothing but sounds good.

Said another way: "TUT has no virtue of its own". If someone can come up with an example of it meaning something relevant, for its own sake, I am all ears (yes, gauntlet toss).

[Defiant1]

So all the literature seems to confirm that hypertrophy can happen no matter what rep range provided you take sets to failure*

So while a set of 20 reps can make you grow as well as a set of 6 reps, I feel that it's too hard to take high rep sets to true failure.

This does bring up a good point. High rep sets to failure or whatever are much harder than low rep sets to failure.

[GeneralSerpant]

I think I don't need to squeeze as hard when training in 20 rep range, just as a matter of learning movement patterns. I feel like the coordination training isn't the same for all the involved muscles when you don't have to grip it harder, but that was mainly from a takeaway of getting into heavy doubles so I'm not certain. Not to mention that lower reps force a lot more stress on the grip side of things.

First thing I think about really is the left/right gears on a bike. Your general level will be greatly improved with the left but the right is where you'll spend time dialing and inching forward.

[Orlando1234977]

That to me points to training at multiple rep ranges, not just using higher reps for everything. There is a difference. The Size principle, the way some people quote it, would imply that by training to failure with 20 reps would make you a great powerlifter. That, by the way, is EXACTLY what the take home of HIT/Jones/Nautilus was in the 70s. Slow speed of movement, done to failure, would develop all aspects of the muscle due to "orderly recruitment/fatigue". Which we all know is bull****. Or should know.

This is great, are we going to rekindle our debates from 2008~? *Searching closet for Zatsiorsky books

Btw, any new recommendations for good books on bodybuilding in the last decade? Have you added to your library?

[BluntD]

Just pulled a lifetime deadlift PR today, one week after turning 40. Over the hill my ass.


EDIT: in after D1. Holy s!

[Defiant1]

This is great, are we going to rekindle our debates from 2008~? *Searching closet for Zatsiorsky books

Btw, any new recommendations for good books on bodybuilding in the last decade? Have you added to your library?

What's to debate? History/science has proven me correct on everything.

[Defiant1]

This is great, are we going to rekindle our debates from 2008~? *Searching closet for Zatsiorsky books

Btw, any new recommendations for good books on bodybuilding in the last decade? Have you added to your library?

Have you seen Zatsiorsky's bodybuilding programs? Basically Arnold.

It is a wasteland for reading. I like Delavier's (Weight Training Anatomy etc). Guy has great info on variability between people, and a good "science to reality" balance.

I still buy and read anything I can, but nothing earth shattering. A lot geared more towards a scientific stance (vs. just straight up "this works" from BBs). Have bought and read a bunch of OLD old school stuff (Sandow, Jowett, Earle Liederman, old Reg Park, Daryl Conant's Vince Gironda books are probably the best source on Vince Gironda-even better than Gironda's book, have 2 Schoenfeld books, Jim Stappani's books. Michael Matthews books are decent. A couple of Yuriy Oliynyk books are good.

Here's the honest truth-there is nothing new to be known in terms of Bodybuilding. Just what is known to be proven. Seriously. Any "science" that disagreed with what BBs were doing has turned out to mostly be a dead end.

Hell...do you know that vibration training actually WORKS for fat loss? So, that means those belted machines that women used in the 50s/60s/70s with the vibrating belts around waist actually worked for fat reduction.

[Orlando1234977]

What's to debate? History/science has proven me correct on everything.

U play ffb?

Have you seen Zatsiorsky's bodybuilding programs? Basically Arnold.

Yeah lots of sets to failure, good stuff.

I like Delavier's (Weight Training Anatomy etc). Guy has great info on variability between people, and a good "science to reality" balance.

I have that one too, but I certainly haven't read through it all. Lots of great illustrations. Think I'll look through it again.

I still buy and read anything I can, but nothing earth shattering. A lot geared more towards a scientific stance (vs. just straight up "this works" from BBs). Have bought and read a bunch of OLD old school stuff (Sandow, Jowett, Earle Liederman, old Reg Park, Daryl Conant's Vince Gironda books are probably the best source on Vince Gironda-even better than Gironda's book, have 2 Schoenfeld books, Jim Stappani's books. Michael Matthews books are decent. A couple of Yuriy Oliynyk books are good.

You have a fantastic library, I still remember the post when you listed them all. I still like the mags from the 80s/90s

[Defiant1]

Just pulled a lifetime deadlift PR today, one week after turning 40. Over the hill my ass.


EDIT: in after D1. Holy s!

Word up Blunt

[im2manly]

D1 and Blunt are the same person theory confirmed. What a time to be alive

[Defiant1]

D1 and Blunt are the same person theory confirmed. What a time to be alive

Pfft. I wish I had just turned 40.

[W8isGR8]

"Failure" is often used in studies because it is probably the most objective way to measure relative effort. But your body is not going to give you the same adaptation to 20 rep sets that it does to 6 rep sets, especially as you advance.

I would say the take home is "you can build size with many rep ranges as long as you train relatively hard (twss), but the more you advance the more specific your adaptation will be".

Those "30% of 1RM build size" studies were done on beginners. I'm not saying that they DON'T work (at all), I'm just saying that the adaptation is going to be different depending on rep range. And there isn't some magic thing that happens at "failure" (Mentzer talking about "the growth signal" is cringe) vs a few reps from it, except it amps the stress up on your nervous system.

As you train more and more towards all out effort, nerve cells become damaged. Nerve cells take WAY longer to recover than muscle cells. And your brain does not like nervous system damage-your CNS is your bodies number one priority in terms of survival. So what does your brain do? Convinces your body not to do it any more.

What works (like Mel Siff said), is a combination of effort AND volume. That sounds simple, but the trick is, you can train with a higher volume with just a slight reduction in effort/set. If there is a secret, finding your personal Effort/Volume sweet spot is it. All the bull**** systems, philosophies, dogma, is really about that.

Yeah, that's why I put the asterisk after failure, as it differs quite a bit. In general I prefer the definition of failure as "Last rep or two with good form". Which also to me means that velocity of lift hasn't changed significantly. So if your last rep is a 10 second sloth grind then you should have stopped before that.

And I agree about the specificity of rep range, but for general hypertrophy I think the rep range is pretty wide.

[W8isGR8]

Also-in "grinds my gears" news. I have suffered in silence about "TUT". That is the dumbest metric for anything and is a great example of how an attempt at description takes on a life of it's own, kind of like "BMI". Has almost zero relevance in any particular situation. Only useful in the most general sense.

I see a lot of smart people using the term, but it is useless and means nothing from a practical sense. It reminds me of people using lifted "total poundage" in the context of bodybuilding training. Again, means mostly nothing but sounds good.

Said another way: "TUT has no virtue of its own". If someone can come up with an example of it meaning something relevant, for its own sake, I am all ears (yes, gauntlet toss).

I agree in that TUT should refer to overall amount of time a muscle is under load(aka volume), not an actual number of seconds per rep or set.

[W8isGR8]

I think I don't need to squeeze as hard when training in 20 rep range, just as a matter of learning movement patterns. I feel like the coordination training isn't the same for all the involved muscles when you don't have to grip it harder, but that was mainly from a takeaway of getting into heavy doubles so I'm not certain. Not to mention that lower reps force a lot more stress on the grip side of things.

First thing I think about really is the left/right gears on a bike. Your general level will be greatly improved with the left but the right is where you'll spend time dialing and inching forward.

The biggest issue I have with higher rep training is feeling like the first 90% of the reps in the set feel worthless and you're just waiting for the metabolic fatigue to set in. I would prefer a drop set/back-off set where you take a heavy weight to induce muscle failure and follow up with a lighter weight for metabolic fatigue. In my head it seems to be the best of both worlds.

[Defiant1]

I agree in that TUT should refer to overall amount of time a muscle is under load(aka volume), not an actual number of seconds per rep or set.

Then you run into "quality" of TUT. I can't think of one example where TUT itself provides ANY valuable information. Some of worst "size" building exercises have the most TUT. Actually, they tend to (cable isolation exercises, cammed machines). And the best size builders tend to have the LEAST TUT. Shrugs, Rows, Wide Chins, BP, Overhead presses, Dips, Calf raises, *O-LIFTS*.

As I said, it reminds me of the "total tonnage lifted" (for bodybuilders), or the total reps (3 x 10 = 10 x 3) nonsense. Taking a number correlated with workouts, then ascribing some kind of causality to it.

BRB, doing super slo-mo with a nautilus pullover for massive liz-atts. Then cable crossovers with a 2 week positive and a 4 week negative for "gladiator" pecs.