you do not need HEAVY weight/ Low reps to GROW muscle

[Retardo-pex]

why?, if I spend the next year training only with 10 rep sets (with a sensible routine) and you do the same with low reps I'm pretty sure that I would lift more weight for 10 reps than you so the argument that training with low reps lets you "use heavier weight in there hypertrophy sets" would be pretty bad.

If he adds 50 lbs to his 1rm and you only add 25 he could easily be doing the same or more than you for 10 reps is his point I think.

It doesn't matter unless you are a powerlifter really, but this is the general mindset when telling a new lifter to "build a base" or focus on getting the compound lifts up. If you take two guys with the same lifts and one only does sets of 10 and the other only does sets of 2, the sets of 2 guy is most likely going to get stronger faster as not only is he loading more on a regular basis but having most likely lower volumes allows his to train this lift more frequently as well.

There really is no one is better or the best, just that the stronger you are the stronger you are. As for the rep work, if all you ever did for everything was sets of 2, then yeah your 10 rep might suffer simply because you have not been training in that rep range or anywhere near it, but if you are a halfway smart lifter you would have been doing other exercises with higher reps to compliment your strength work from the get go, so not only are you stronger faster but that "endurance" component will still be there from your accessory lifts.

Again there is no "BEST" way, only best for YOU.

[scullin]

In one workout I can train single and triples as well as sets of 15...why wouldn't I?

That's exactly what I do.

[NatMuscleBrit]

I agree 100% with the OP as a person who put on 1/2 an inch on my calves in 2 weeks and 3 months before that increased the same with arms and calves also, with a weight decrease..

weight is very subjective, firstly comparing subject 1 to subject 2 is stupid, also the theory that YOU CAN ONLY INCREASE MUSCLE BY MORE WEIGHT is also the self defeating, lets says your physical maxium is 800 squats for 1 rep..what your basically saying is that your legs wont grow once, you hit 800lb..

Strength training is so different from bodybuilding its a total polar opposite.

when i see youtube natty's doing wendler and other strength based programs, and they complain about calves, well i dont anymore, thats because i train to failure and do certain training methods..

[scullin]

I agree 100% with the OP as a person who put on 1/2 an inch on my calves in 2 weeks and 3 months before that increased the same with arms and calves also, with a weight decrease..

weight is very subjective, firstly comparing subject 1 to subject 2 is stupid, also the theory that YOU CAN ONLY INCREASE MUSCLE BY MORE WEIGHT is also the self defeating, lets says your physical maxium is 800 squats for 1 rep..what your basically saying is that your legs wont grow once, you hit 800lb..

Strength training is so different from bodybuilding its a total polar opposite.

when i see youtube natty's doing wendler and other strength based programs, and they complain about calves, well i dont anymore, thats because i train to failure and do certain training methods..

You just went full potato witht the bolded statement.

[NatMuscleBrit]

You just went full potato witht the bolded statement.

not really, one is training to body to deal with certain stress, one is untraining and training the body..

[J777]

You just went full potato witht the bolded statement.

bodybuilding is different, end of story. Mechanical stimulus is important, but nowhere near to the extent that many are lead to believe.

A recent study from Brad Schoenfeld :

Regimented resistance training has been shown to promote marked increases in skeletal muscle mass. Although muscle hypertrophy can be attained through a wide range of resistance training programs, the principle of specificity, which states that adaptations are specific to the nature of the applied stimulus, dictates that some programs will promote greater hypertrophy than others. Research is lacking, however, as to the best combination of variables required to maximize hypertophic gains. The purpose of this study was to investigate muscular adaptations to a volume-equated bodybuilding-type training program versus a powerlifting-type routine in well-trained subjects. 17 young men were randomly assigned to either an HT group that performed 3 sets of 10RM with 90 seconds rest or an ST group that performed 7 sets of 3RM with 3 minutes rest. After 8 weeks, no significant differences were noted in muscle thickness of the biceps brachii. Significant strength differences were found in favor of ST for the 1RM bench press and a trend was found for greater increases in the 1RM squat. In conclusion, this study showed both bodybuilding- and powerlifting-type training promote similar increases in muscular size, but powerlifting-type training is superior for enhancing maximal strength.


What it tells us is that VOLUME is the KING, not weight on the bar. But the powerlifting group was significantly burnt out and it took them a long time to achieve the same volume of work, therefore rendering the Powerlifting type of work pretty much impractical for bodybuilders

Furthermore, he is now conducting a study comparing 3sets x 10 reps and 3 x 30 reps. His preliminary conclusion is: "One thing clear so far: well-trained subjects gain muscle from 30-rep sets !!!!!"- *****://twitter.com/BradSchoenfeld/status/464107581540413440


Another study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22832536

The authors investigated the effects of low-intensity resistance training on muscle size and strength in older men and women. Thirty-five participants (age 59-76 yr) were randomly assigned to 2 groups and performed low-intensity (50% of 1-repetition maximum) knee-extension and -flexion exercises with either slow movement and tonic force generation (LST; 3-s eccentric, 3-s concentric, and 1-s isometric actions with no rest between repetitions) or normal speed (LN; 1-s concentric and 1-s eccentric actions with 1-s rests between repetitions) twice a week for 12 wk (2-wk preparation and 10-wk intervention). The LST significantly increased thigh-muscle thickness, as well as isometric knee-extension and -flexion strength. The LN significantly improved strength, but its hypertrophic effect was limited. These results indicate that even for older individuals, the LST can be an effective method for gaining muscle mass and strength.


It all brings us to realisation that there are many ways to skin a cat. However, why risk with heavy weights and getting burnt out if there are better, more efficient approaches to building muscle and stimulating hypertrophy. Yes, I am a bit mad. However, I am a bodybuilder and I am after maximal muscle growth, not strength

[scullin]

not really, one is training to body to deal with certain stress, one is untraining and training the body..

Polar opposite is wrong. Both methods can be used. A lot of powerlifters do bodybuilding accessory work. Look at the cube method. Even old school guys like Ed Coan used to primarily do a bodybuilding split for all his accessory work.

bodybuilding is different, end of story.

Different and "The Polar Opposite" aren't the same thing. Of course they're different but there's definitely carry over between the two and hardly the polar opposite.

[J777]

Polar opposite is wrong. Both methods can be used. A lot of powerlifters do bodybuilding accessory work. Look at the cube method. Even old school guys like Ed Coan used to primarily do a bodybuilding split for all his accessory work.


Different and "The Polar Opposite" aren't the same thing. Of course they're different but there's definitely carry over between the two and hardly the polar opposite.

I do not care about the carryover effect, I am after size gains. This is the creed of bodybuilding. I never do 1RM and do not even know how strong I am in 5RM. I train exclusively instinctively, short rest periods and for trying to fatigue the muscle.

[Retardo-pex]

I agree 100% with the OP as a person who put on 1/2 an inch on my calves in 2 weeks and 3 months before that increased the same with arms and calves also, with a weight decrease..

weight is very subjective, firstly comparing subject 1 to subject 2 is stupid, also the theory that YOU CAN ONLY INCREASE MUSCLE BY MORE WEIGHT is also the self defeating, lets says your physical maxium is 800 squats for 1 rep..what your basically saying is that your legs wont grow once, you hit 800lb..

Strength training is so different from bodybuilding its a total polar opposite.

when i see youtube natty's doing wendler and other strength based programs, and they complain about calves, well i dont anymore, thats because i train to failure and do certain training methods..

You are in the all or nothing group then. The fact is there can be differences between the two types of training but they are only significant if you follow a strict training methodology. I wouldn't recommend westside barbell methods for someone 100% intent on doing bodybuilding shows, but that in no way means they can't benefit it or customize it in a way that still benefits hypertrophy. If we are talking generic customizable splits...they are barely different at all. Take upper lower or push pull legs for example, both allow you to hit everything once or twice a week, you can make each day completely different and focus on separate muscle groups or you can focus on strength one day and speed/hypertrophy other with all the same lifts, it really only comes down to the loads and volumes when we get to this point. Saying they are polar opposites is taking 10 steps back, each will benefit the other, especially in a natural lifter.

Even the idea that you can't possibly train calves the same way you are describing AND be running 5/3/1 is absurd.

Basically, you have things like westside and German volume training, then everything inbetween. The further to each end of the programming/methodologies spectrum you get, the less specific the training will be for your desired activity. The huge lump of programs in the middle though tend to allow you to progress in both without sacrificing anything. If you are at the top of your game in powerlifting or bodybuilding, you'd be at the extreme ends. If you are an athlete, new, or a normal person, you can greatly increase your size and lifts with just about any type of program or training.

And FYI if you get a raw squat of 800 lbs chances are you ARE at or near your own personal growth limits as well. To that effect, 1 lb is more weight and more stress still. So for someone who is a normal person, chances are you are 4-500 lbs lower than an 800 lb squat, so think of all the growth potential you could achieve simply by striving for 800 lbs. This sin't even just an idea, a few years back Layne Norton hated his legs, so he looked at a bunch of other bodybuilders that had bigger legs than him and noticed a trend of them all squatting more. He boosted his squat to over 500 lbs and his thighs obviously followed suit. This is obviously just one example of one lifter but I'm simply pointing out that as it has always been, there is no ONE TRUE METHOD to get the results you desire, and there is always another route that can lead to the same ending.

[NeroMaj]

This is a very narrow view of weight training in general. There are three variables to weight training: volume (number of reps/sets), density (rest time between sets), and intensity (level of effort on each set).

One or more of these variable can be altered to introduce a new stimulus to the body and provoke adaptation. That adaptation can be getting stronger (generally in the low volume, low density, high intensity combination) or hypertrophy (generally in the med to high volume, med to high density, moderate intensity combination).

Obviously there is some middle ground and overlap.

[Retardo-pex]

I do not care about the carryover effect, I am after size gains. This is the creed of bodybuilding. I never do 1RM and do not even know how strong I am in 5RM. I train exclusively instinctively, short rest periods and for trying to fatigue the muscle.

That doesn't mean anyone who does not follow your thought process will fail, it simply means you found what works best for you. If you discovered that adding singles or 5's into your training gave you greater muscular growth, you would stop what you were doing and immediately train this way. I'm just saying if its good enough for Arnold and Ronnie its probably not a bad idea to look into it. Again, everything is always better than one or the other.

[J777]

You are in the all or nothing group then. The fact is there can be differences between the two types of training but they are only significant if you follow a strict training methodology. I wouldn't recommend westside barbell methods for someone 100% intent on doing bodybuilding shows, but that in no way means they can't benefit it or customize it in a way that still benefits hypertrophy. If we are talking generic customizable splits...they are barely different at all. Take upper lower or push pull legs for example, both allow you to hit everything once or twice a week, you can make each day completely different and focus on separate muscle groups or you can focus on strength one day and speed/hypertrophy other with all the same lifts, it really only comes down to the loads and volumes when we get to this point. Saying they are polar opposites is taking 10 steps back, each will benefit the other, especially in a natural lifter.

Even the idea that you can't possibly train calves the same way you are describing AND be running 5/3/1 is absurd.

Basically, you have things like westside and German volume training, then everything inbetween. The further to each end of the programming/methodologies spectrum you get, the less specific the training will be for your desired activity. The huge lump of programs in the middle though tend to allow you to progress in both without sacrificing anything. If you are at the top of your game in powerlifting or bodybuilding, you'd be at the extreme ends. If you are an athlete, new, or a normal person, you can greatly increase your size and lifts with just about any type of program or training.

And FYI if you get a raw squat of 800 lbs chances are you ARE at or near your own personal growth limits as well. To that effect, 1 lb is more weight and more stress still. So for someone who is a normal person, chances are you are 4-500 lbs lower than an 800 lb squat, so think of all the growth potential you could achieve simply by striving for 800 lbs. This sin't even just an idea, a few years back Layne Norton hated his legs, so he looked at a bunch of other bodybuilders that had bigger legs than him and noticed a trend of them all squatting more. He boosted his squat to over 500 lbs and his thighs obviously followed suit. This is obviously just one example of one lifter but I'm simply pointing out that as it has always been, there is no ONE TRUE METHOD to get the results you desire, and there is always another route that can lead to the same ending.

please, do not let me show you some underdeveloped people squatting and benching ridiculous amounts of weight but still looking like straws. Strength does not mean muscle growth that bodybuilders seek. Yes, your muscle will somewhat grow when training 5/3/1 and Westside etc. However, even the mentioned GVT is best suited for bodybuilder's goals and aims. Many people dismiss GVT although they have never even tried it and do not even understand how it works

[J777]

That doesn't mean anyone who does not follow your thought process will fail, it simply means you found what works best for you. If you discovered that adding singles or 5's into your training gave you greater muscular growth, you would stop what you were doing and immediately train this way. I'm just saying if its good enough for Arnold and Ronnie its probably not a bad idea to look into it. Again, everything is always better than one or the other.

Ronnie did not train with heavy weights to build that muscle, I have asked him personally if that helps. The videos were pure show. He said that he did it once or twice every 2-3 months
And it does not only work for me. If people believed me and did it they would be amazed and would finally ditch that Starting Strength, 5/3/1 and other powerlifting programs crap if their goal is to build muscle

[scullin]

Ronnie did not train with heavy weights to build that muscle, I have asked him personally if that helps. The videos were pure show. He said that he did it once or twice every 2-3 months

You going to dispute that he trained with powerlifters and competed in powerlifting too?

[J777]

You going to dispute that he trained with powerlifters and competed in powerlifting too?

he did, he told me that as well. However, he said that his muscle mass came from bodybuilding training, not his powerlifting. He was only training powerlifting for the meets while spending majority of time training with higher reps and high volume

[scullin]

he did, he told me that as well. However, he said that his muscle mass came from bodybuilding training, not his powerlifting. He was only training powerlifting for the meets while spending majority of time training with higher reps and high volume

You don't think the strength he gained from doing that helped him rep out with heavy weights?

[J777]

You don't think the strength he gained from doing that helped him rep out with heavy weights?

it did because, but what you say IS HEAVY is not heavy for Ronnie. Him benching 200 lbs dumbbells for 12 reps is ****ing heavy for you and me, not for Ronnie. This is common parroting that i HEAR on these forums. And do not use Ronnie as an example please, and you know the reasons why. I train at the gym where there are people that bench more than me, even 10rm and yet are smaller, and they are the ones training for strength which is a neurological adaptation, not muscle size related. Understand this, it is not the weight on the bar, free your mind and think about what I have said above. Weight is just one gage for progression. You can progress by doing more reps with the same weight, adding more sets and reducing rest times. Weight means ****, you can grow with 50RM (it is just quite impractical as you will need to reach fatigue with that weight and it takes a while)

[NatMuscleBrit]

the two people promoting high reps for building muscle
6'1 = 240lb
5.9 = 220lb

[scullin]

it did because, but what you say IS HEAVY is not heavy for Ronnie. Him benching 200 lbs dumbbells for 12 reps is ****ing heavy for you and me, not for Ronnie. This is common parroting that i HEAR on these forums. And do not use Ronnie as an example please, and you know the reasons why. I train at the gym where there are people that bench more than me, even 10rm and yet are smaller, and they are the ones training for strength which neurological, more than muscle size related. Understand this, it is not the weight on the bar, free your mind and think about what I have said above. Weight is just one gage for progression. You can progress by doing more reps with the same weight, adding more sets and reducing rest times. Weight means ****, you can grow with 50RM (it is just quite impractical as you will need to reach fatigue with that weight and it takes a while)

Here's the thing. There's a lot of beginners around here. They see a big guy like you say "don't train heavy and you'll get big like me". So they end up lifting the pink 5 lb dumbells with their friends thinking they're going to get big from it.

I'm well aware of doing higher reps. I believe in using a multitude of rep ranges. Those guys at your gym might also not be eating as much as you or other things as well.

[J777]

Straight to the point: what your ideal workout for size and aesthetics would be? What exercises? What reps range? How many sets and what kind of progression would you use?

My yesterday Chest:

1) Bench press: starting with 30 reps, pyramid down in reps, up in weight to 10 reps
2) Machine Chest Press unilateral: I take weight that I can do 20-25 reps and what I do is 10-12 sets resting no more than 30-45 seconds in between. I do not do 20-25 reps, I stop at about 15 (no failure) and just keep going avoiding failure. My 1 set is 15-16 reps, but by set 5 I barely can manage 7-8 reps.
3) I randomly do explosive/plyometric pushups and try to rush as much blood as possible
4) I sometimes throw in this technique: grab a weight you can fail at 15 reps and do 6 sets of 4 reps with that weight, resting 10 seconds between each miniset
5) Lastly, I always finish off by doing two sets of isolation exercise, going very slowly and keeping the tension on the muscle, so the set takes me 60 seconds to complete.

[J777]

Here's the thing. There's a lot of beginners around here. They see a big guy like you say "don't train heavy and you'll get big like me". So they end up lifting the pink 5 lb dumbells with their friends thinking they're going to get big from it.

I'm well aware of doing higher reps. I believe in using a multitude of rep ranges. Those guys at your gym might also not be eating as much as you or other things as well.

you need resistance, sure, that is why suggesting 5 lb dumbbells is impractical. there is a minimum intensity requirement, but read my post on training

[J777]

Here's the thing. There's a lot of beginners around here. They see a big guy like you say "don't train heavy and you'll get big like me". So they end up lifting the pink 5 lb dumbells with their friends thinking they're going to get big from it.

I'm well aware of doing higher reps. I believe in using a multitude of rep ranges. Those guys at your gym might also not be eating as much as you or other things as well.

And all kids should just do Starting Strength just because it is cool and not a move-tone.

[scullin]

And all kids should just do Starting Strength just because it is cool and not a move-tone.

It's not a bad place to start (no pun). lol

[veggie530]

Well... so far looks like this topic hasn't shown anything. Lol

[J777]

It's not a bad place to start (no pun). lol

I give up...to each their own. I just opened that thread to offer practical tips based on those who I train with, experimenting for 10 years I have been training and others who convinced me to adopt different approaches to training

[NatMuscleBrit]

I was fed up with youtube guru's banging on about lifting heavy weight is the only way to grow, so i use TUT and i thought ide prove a point..

[supramax]

Ronnie did not train with heavy weights to build that muscle, I have asked him personally if that helps. The videos were pure show. He said that he did it once or twice every 2-3 months
And it does not only work for me. If people believed me and did it they would be amazed and would finally ditch that Starting Strength, 5/3/1 and other powerlifting programs crap if their goal is to build muscle

It's nice to see some sanity.

[sonnydfrizzy]

I think people are overcomplicating this way too much. If you want greater hypertrophy but less strength, train in the 8-12 rep range. Is it as satisfying as hitting a new 5RM almost every week and seeing your strength skyrocket? For me personally, not at all. I would rather train in low reps on the compounds and see progression weekly. I spun my wheeels trying to progressively overload everything in the deemed "bodybuilding rep range" and now that I train for strength and then do "fluff" accessory work in higher rep ranges, it is so much more satisfying. This is because progression is visible and I am not going to be doing a bodybuilding show any time soon..

Plus, when people say "I grew a half an inch on my bicep by doing 30 rep sets the last 2 weeks" it is probably just cellular swelling causing a perma"pump" making the muscle appear larger. The take away message is: Progressive overload is achieved in a plethora of ways, not just with adding weight to the bar. While OP progresses by doing more volume in less time, adding reps, adding sets, I prefer to just add weight to the bar so I eventally look like a badass when I squat 405 and deadlift 5 plates. Strength training is more satisfying and visible in its progress... and you gain some considerable size too

[FlexStrong88]

Nauseating amount of bro science in the thread.

Hahaha.

You guys need to read Brad Schoenfeld's research paper named: Mechanisms for Hypertrophy. Google it. Its a bit of a read but it gives a really good understanding of what are the different adaptations of each training variation.

[JaredPunch]

Now call me heretic but I wonder if that's why P90X seems to work so damn good.
I mean: I have known several people real life at my gym and online who did P90X and they look good, expecially the skinny-fat ones, they transform in 3 months when it take them almost 2 years with the usual bulk then cut method and heavy weights.

And I've always rationalized this as chance since, for what my knowledgewas , P90X is everything that shouldn't work in the first place. No calorie surplus, no frequent progressive overload, lot of bodyweight stuff with never a weight added, lot of volume, sounds more like cardio. And still any single person on that program I have seen lost fat and gained muscle, which for some is just akin to sci-fi.