Hi people
It seems like the trend nowadays for hypertrophy is training with heavy loads not to failure with low reps
eg-10 x 3 12 x 2 etc…
Do u find that this gives u more hypertrophy than say the traditional 8-12 “so called” hypertrophy range?
Im still experimenting myself but i find im getting more strengh than muscle size.But thats just me i suppose.
But when i work it in with 5 x 10 ala anti bodybuilding training it seems to work well.
So 10 x 3 For or against?
Peace
HHH
Have you read Chad Waterbury’s article “The Science behind 10x3” (or something like that)?
Go check the recent articles link. It’s very educational.
I’ve just started training 10 X 3.
Monday’s - chest / back (horizontal)
Wednesday’s - deadlift
Friday’s - shoulders / back (vertical)
I’ll report back in a couple of months.
I’ve worked out with the 10x3 method and it’s great!!! I believe it’s one of the best workouts for people like me who can’t stand high rep training. I find anything over 6 reps incredibly boring (with the excpetion of some exercises)
Cheers
Clutch
[quote]HHH wrote:
Hi people
It seems like the trend nowadays for hypertrophy is training with heavy loads not to failure with low reps eg-10 x 3 12 x 2 etc…
Do u find that this gives u more hypertrophy than say the traditional 8-12 “so called” hypertrophy range?
Im still experimenting myself but i find im getting more strengh than muscle size.But thats just me i suppose.
But when i work it in with 5 x 10 ala anti bodybuilding training it seems to work well.
So 10 x 3 For or against?
Peace
HHH [/quote]
there’s no such thing as “more or less hypertrophy”. the growth mechanism has been activated or it hasn’t.
science tells us hypertrophy is activated when the muscle is pushed beyond what it is capable of - failure.
since this theory claims hypertrophy is possible without failure, it is a flawed one.
since muscle size and strength are directly dependant upon one another, it’s interesting that you’re getting stronger, but not bigger.
ps. this type of training looks like something from a weider product catalogue - like Flex or something.
[quote]caca wrote:
since this theory claims hypertrophy is possible without failure, it is a flawed one.
ps. this type of training looks like something from a weider product catalogue - like Flex or something.
[/quote]
Caca,
Have you spent any time looking at Chad’s programs…? You may want to have a look. Or perhaps Chad is plagiarizing Flex.
Also, if you are stating that hypertrophy is only achievable if one works to failure can you post some references to recent research that supports this? I’d be interested in taking a look.
Thanks.
[quote] caca wrote:
there’s no such thing as “more or less hypertrophy”. the growth mechanism has been activated or it hasn’t. [/quote]
Except that the word ‘hypertrophy’ doesn’t describe a growth mechanism it describes growth. Specifically the (nontumorous) enlargement of tissue (or an organ) through an increase in cell size (as opposed to an increase in the number of cells). At least, that’s what this book called Dictionary that I’ve got on my desk says.
=P
[quote] caca wrote:
science tells us hypertrophy is activated when the muscle is pushed beyond what it is capable of - failure. [/quote]
What science are you talking about?
I don’t believe that is correct that size and strength are directly correlated. Or course they are related. You can get stronger without getting bigger. And you can get bigger without getting much stronger. Lots of people put on size without going to muscle failure. In fact, almost all the old time strong men didn’t go to failure and many of them were big. Flex? I don’t think Flex would ever have a program with such low reps. Seems to me volume has more to do with size and intensity more to do with strength. 10x3 has both.
[quote]caca wrote:
science tells us hypertrophy is activated when the muscle is pushed beyond what it is capable of - failure.
merc63 wrote:
What science are you talking about?[/quote]
Dude, your so dum. He’s talking about the most popular form of science: science fiction!
Plenty of people-myself included have experienced hypertrophy without going to failure.
[quote]T-Bone2 wrote:
caca wrote:
since this theory claims hypertrophy is possible without failure, it is a flawed one.
ps. this type of training looks like something from a weider product catalogue - like Flex or something.
Caca,
Have you spent any time looking at Chad’s programs…? You may want to have a look. Or perhaps Chad is plagiarizing Flex.
Also, if you are stating that hypertrophy is only achievable if one works to failure can you post some references to recent research that supports this? I’d be interested in taking a look.
Thanks.
[/quote]
Just off the top of my head, books i’ve read, Arthur Jones Nautilus Training Principles, Mike Mentzer Heavy I and Heavy Duty II, High Intensity Training Dr. Elington Darden, Rational Strength Training Dr. Kevin Fontaine…
I’ve read weider books, Anorlds Encyclopeida to body building (another weider product) etc… these have nice pics - but for actual practical sustance contain absolutly nothing.
[quote]merc63 wrote:
caca wrote:
there’s no such thing as “more or less hypertrophy”. the growth mechanism has been activated or it hasn’t.
Except that the word ‘hypertrophy’ doesn’t describe a growth mechanism it describes growth. Specifically the (nontumorous) enlargement of tissue (or an organ) through an increase in cell size (as opposed to an increase in the number of cells). At least, that’s what this book called Dictionary that I’ve got on my desk says.
=P
caca wrote:
science tells us hypertrophy is activated when the muscle is pushed beyond what it is capable of - failure.
What science are you talking about?[/quote]
i won’t pretend to be a doctor, but i’m reffering to human body science. The same way your skin tans from exposure to sunlight, your muscles respond by growing when exposed to high intensity stimulus.
as for distinguishing “growth” and “growth mechanism”, i don’t understand the piont you are trying to make…?
[quote]BradS wrote:
I don’t believe that is correct that size and strength are directly correlated. Or course they are related.[/quote]
you are contradicting yourself
[quote]
Seems to me volume has more to do with size and intensity more to do with strength. 10x3 has both. [/quote]
Size AND strength, on an individual basis are directly related to one another from the addition of muscle size. The more cells created, the stronger you get etc…
Training for strength and ENDURANCE however are two very different things.
This is a rule of thumb of course - Anabolics and water retention aside.
[quote]caca wrote:
…your muscles respond by growing when exposed to high intensity stimulus.[/quote]
No disagreement here, but high intensity stimulus does not have to equate to going to failure.
You may want to have a look at this article and compare to other authors you’ve cited above.
… i was reminded in another thread why i stay away from message boards.
so i’m signing off.
but i will leave you with this.
why the arbitrary number of 3 sets and why 10 reps? does something majical occur on the 10th rep?
what if i did 2 sets of 20, since volume is best, why not 20 sets of a 100?
Caca.
[quote]caca wrote:
T-Bone2 wrote:
caca wrote:
since this theory claims hypertrophy is possible without failure, it is a flawed one.
ps. this type of training looks like something from a weider product catalogue - like Flex or something.
Caca,
Have you spent any time looking at Chad’s programs…? You may want to have a look. Or perhaps Chad is plagiarizing Flex.
Also, if you are stating that hypertrophy is only achievable if one works to failure can you post some references to recent research that supports this? I’d be interested in taking a look.
Thanks.
Just off the top of my head, books i’ve read, Arthur Jones Nautilus Training Principles, Mike Mentzer Heavy I and Heavy Duty II, High Intensity Training Dr. Elington Darden, Rational Strength Training Dr. Kevin Fontaine…
I’ve read weider books, Anorlds Encyclopeida to body building (another weider product) etc… these have nice pics - but for actual practical sustance contain absolutly nothing.[/quote]
At first I thought you were joking, then I read the rest of your posts. Wow, dude. Seriuosly…wow. I’m stunned.
Do you really want to suggest that a person only obtains hypertrophy by going to failure? Again, wow. And hypertrophy is either on or not? I’m speachless about that one.
BTW, he asked for research, not books. Research would suggest that a peer-reviewed scientific study should have taken place and results interpretted.
Books like those you mentioned are just pushing a training philosophy, not science. BIG difference. Now, some books push a training philosophy based on scientific studies, but then they typically SITE those studies in the book somewhere. Can you get these studies from the books you mentioned and post them for us?
Please enlighten us,
Matt
[quote]caca wrote:
i won’t pretend to be a doctor, but i’m reffering to human body science. The same way your skin tans from exposure to sunlight, your muscles respond by growing when exposed to high intensity stimulus.
as for distinguishing “growth” and “growth mechanism”, i don’t understand the piont you are trying to make…?[/quote]
No kidding you’re not a doctor. You haven’t quoted any science, you just made a bunch of anecdotal observations. What is the science behind tanning skin? Tell me. “Stick it in the light and it gets dark” is not science.
Yes, your muscles respond to growing when exposed to high intensity stimulus. That doesn’t contain the word “failure” in it anywhere, does it?
Are you telling me that 10x3 isn’t high intensity stimulus? Are you telling me that muscles grow only by the Arthur Jones stimulus method? What about volume? What about Eastern European and Russian volume training? How did those guys get so freakin big?! They must have secretly been using Nautilus machines while pretending to do massive volume. Here’s a clue: if you constantly train to failure, you limit the volume you can do. Hmmm… all of a sudden we have a contradiction.
[quote]Just off the top of my head, books i’ve read, Arthur Jones Nautilus Training Principles, Mike Mentzer Heavy I and Heavy Duty II, High Intensity Training Dr. Elington Darden, Rational Strength Training Dr. Kevin Fontaine…
I’ve read weider books, Anorlds Encyclopeida to body building (another weider product) etc… these have nice pics - but for actual practical sustance contain absolutly nothing.[/quote]
Ahhh… now it all makes sense. This is almost a check-list for All You Wanted to Know About HIT In One Simple List. Did you read ANYTHING by anyone other than your favorite HIT authers, or from authors who were not exceptionally genetically gifted? You do realize that regular people can’t train the same way as genetic freaks? They grow so big because they are genetically gifted, sometimes in spite of their programs, not because of them. And Weider? What science has he ever conducted? Please, give me examples.
Here’s an exercise: Read this article and tell me why the science behind it is unsound.
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=547470
Here’s another tip: educate yourself a little more. You might actually like it.
[quote]caca wrote:
science tells us hypertrophy is activated when the muscle is pushed beyond what it is capable of - failure.
since this theory claims hypertrophy is possible without failure, it is a flawed one.
[/quote]
what a load of caca.
[quote]caca wrote:
… i was reminded in another thread why i stay away from message boards.
so i’m signing off.
but i will leave you with this.
why the arbitrary number of 3 sets and why 10 reps? does something majical occur on the 10th rep?
what if i did 2 sets of 20, since volume is best, why not 20 sets of a 100?
Caca.[/quote]
I think he was reminded that he has a mental retardation issue
[quote]
Just off the top of my head, books i’ve read, Arthur Jones Nautilus Training Principles, Mike Mentzer Heavy I and Heavy Duty II, High Intensity Training Dr. Elington Darden, Rational Strength Training Dr. Kevin Fontaine…
I’ve read weider books, Anorlds Encyclopeida to body building (another weider product) etc… these have nice pics - but for actual practical sustance contain absolutly nothing.[/quote]
I resent that. If Mike Mentzer had stuck with my principles he’d still be alive…and he might’ve been able to be in shape for more than ten minutes in his life.
All the books from the Weider Library contain all the information you or anyone could ever need to build a better body.
All you have to do is put Weider Principle 287 and 301 to work–that’s Dynamic Reading and Advanced Tension Comprehension, repectively.
And besides that, they don’t call it the Mike Mentzer or Ellington Darden Mr. Olympia do they?
Well, do they?