1000 Reps to Bigger Muscles

Training Bodybuilding
61

Lou, here is an example of a workout that I did on Friday Sept 22nd. It includes pre fatigue, gaint sets, rest-pause. Most of my workouts start with a plan. But i generally make them up as I go sometimes and just make it intense.

Pre-exaustion is very useful sometimes. I do it all, pre and post.

posted 09/22/2006 at 10:30AM

A.M. routine

Chest Blaster - Push ups/28 rep supersets

Push ups - As many as possible in 2 minutes, rest-pause at top of movement to force more reps, 1-5 minute rest

-3 Sets each (10-12 RM weight)
-4 Part Superset- with no rest between exercises, 1-2 minute rest after each superset

1 - Dumbbell Bench Press(neutral grip, slight 10 degree incline) 7 reps
2 - Dumbbell Bench Press(neutral grip, slight -10 degree decline) 7 reps
3 - Dumbbell Flyes(slight 10 degree incline) 7 reps
4 - Dumbbell Flyes(slight -10 degree decline) 7 reps

P.M. routine

Arm Annihilation-(Biceps/forearms)

2 sets- Single Arm Dumbbell Preacher Curl- 20-25 RM weight

Curl 25 reps, then rest-pause every 5 reps all the way to 50 reps then switch arms after a quick rest less than 30 seconds. 1-2 min rest between sets

2 Supersets with the same weight(200 total reps)(use momentum as you hit failure)

1st exercise- 50 total reps - Alternating Reverse Dumbbell Curls(thumb on top grip) quick rest, less than 30 seconds

2nd exercise (same weight) - Hammer Curls - 50 total alternating reps

62

Lou, here is an alternate routine I used a few weeks later.

posted 10/05/2006 at 6:58PM

Chest Specialization
(2 light warm up sets - Incline Bench Press for 10 reps)

3 total sets for each Giant Set

Giant Set #1 (no rest between exercises)
Incline Bench Press - 6 reps
Incline Dumbbell Press - 8 reps
Incline Dumbbell Flyes - 10 reps
Rest - 1 to 2 minutes

Giant Set #2 (no rest between exercises)
Bench Press - 6 reps
Dumbbell Press - 8 reps
Dumbbell Flyes - 10 reps
Rest - 1 to 2 minutes

Giant Set #3 (no rest between exercises)
Barbell Pullover & Press - 12 reps, then push to failure
Push ups - to failure
Incline Push Ups - to failure
Rest - 1 to 2 minutes

Calves - 500 Bodyweight Standing Raises throughout the day in sets of 100 & 50 reps

63

I may be crazy, but i’d rather do drop sets than 5 heavy reps of a compound exercise followed by 10 or more isolation exercise reps.

I train for the pump, and I think that drop-setting is far better than most methods, except Pre-Exhaustion supersets of Isolation+Compound exercises.

You jusr need to know how to load the bar.

Usually, just see what combination of weights and speed of lifting gives you the best pump.

No way you can screw that up.

64

[quote]louisluthor wrote:
I may be crazy, but i’d rather do drop sets than 5 heavy reps of a compound exercise followed by 10 or more isolation exercise reps.

I train for the pump, and I think that drop-setting is far better than most methods, except Pre-Exhaustion supersets of Isolation+Compound exercises.

You jusr need to know how to load the bar.

Usually, just see what combination of weights and speed of lifting gives you the best pump.

No way you can screw that up.[/quote]

YES, OH MY GOD, YES, there is a way for just about anybody to screw up something that simple.

I am also a fan of drop-setting and pre-exhaustion. But the way to succeed is to know when you are going either too heavy or too high on load and reps, not to mention how fast.

You need to find a combination between the load and the speed of lifting that allows you to get the best pump. Reps will depend on that balance, so the idea is not counting reps, is counting pumps, and getting better pumps per rep by manipulating load and speed.

Let’s follow a simple guideline for pre-exhaustion. To steal a page of Pump’s idea, let’s say you do chest flyes before bench pressing.

The idea is to reach a balance between the load used and the speed of lifting with leads to the number of reps that you will get out of them.

In other words, find out what is the best way to take those moderate weights to failure.

I might do fast reps in less than a second and a half per rep, going too light and getting 20 reps of work and yet miss the good old “pump” feeling.Or I might go too heavy and too fast so I get 12-15 reps and end up hurting myself and getting a cramp rather than a pump.

Botom line, the primary exercise is the chest flyes, so find out how to do a set to failure in the ebst way to get the best pump.

When you get the right parameters, that’s when you should do your first superset, and then you need to tinker with the load used to get tbe best pump. You must know how to load the bar for the compound exercise, the bench press.

At that point, you just need to worry about the load and the speed. You won’t be able to control tempo, but you must use a speed and form that gives you the best stimulation from the first rep to the last.

You may need two or three supersets to find the right load and then you are on your way, just remember to write it all down and get a spotter to help you with the bar and the logs, you won’t have enough energy, and you will be too shaky to write something.

Drop sets are the same. You need to find a combination between the load and the speed of lifting that allows you to get the best pump. Reps will depend on that balance, so the idea is not counting reps, is counting pumps, and getting better pumps per rep by manipulating load and speed. I just happened to discover that I work best in the 6-8 rep range, because a set under 5 reps is not as pumping for me as it could…so my drop sets are a triplet sets of 6-8 reps with different loads and almost the same tempo: lift fast, no pause at the top (nor at the bottom, I like constant tension) and lower as slow as i can to struggle with the laod, geenrally speaking, above 1 second and almost 2…but I never count it so I assume I only take 1 second on the way down.

That’s how you feel the reps…basically, without focusing too much energy into maintaining a speed, you just let the muscle lift fast and hard and lower under a good deal of stress…you should feel it slightly easier to lwoer, but it shouldn’t be easy, your msucles shouldn’t get no breaks…keep tension constant, like you were doing an isometric, but for God’s sakes, more than 2 seconds is just plain stupid…

Just try to feel a pump from the second, or the third rep and then try to keep it as much as you can, and think that the lowering should feel only a little easier than the lifting, like you were doing dynamic tension exercises after getting beaten up with a crowbar…that’ll get you focused.

Also, if you feel frisky, let’s do a superset between chest flyes and drop sets…I guarante you that it will blow your mind and your muscles into new growth.

65

Again Lou, like Vandal said “you’re swinging for the forest and hitting the trees”.

All this horseshit is mostly preference.

What counts is this.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Today’s tip comes from Christian Thibaudeau:

More Effort, Less Program

It seems that every trainee is looking for the “perfect program” that’s sure to give him the body of his dreams. These people think that doing a certain workout, even if they’re only going through the motions, will give them the gains they want. Let me tell you something: the worst program in the world performed pedal to the metal will bring on more results than the best possible program done half-assed!

66

I like Pre-Exhaustion and Drop setting…it is logical to squeeze the orange as hard as you can and as many times as you need to get every drop of juice out iof it you can.

Such is my thinking about the body’s capacity for physical effort. That’s why I chose drop sets and pre-exhaustion as my new thing, and so far, 1 session completed, it feels like I should have done this a long time ago.

Finally I get why you do isolation exercises. I used to think they only worked for small muscles, like eltoids, biceps and triceps, to work for size, I thought I had to sue compounds with havy loads…now I see than that’s true, but some isolation works great too,but only when using pre-exhaustion training.

I mean, I still have a dumb question to ask: if the biceps (and the triceps too,for the sake of argument, despite the fact that triceps presses and dips are cool) get big with isolation movements, like curls are, why can’t the chest get big too?

I guess that there’s no way to use isolation exercises by themselves on a program without using compounds, and even so, isolation exercises don’t build as much mass as compounds…that’s why there are programs where they only do compounds, but no programs where you do only isolation.

By the way Vandal…why don’t you become a T-Nation writer, or Go_Heavy?

I also want to ask if there’s a program or policy, a way of training which you can adhere to almost like forever?

I mean, there are a thousand ways to put a nail in a piece of wood, but nothin beats the classical hammer when it comes down to do it simple and good, am I wrong?

67

[quote]louisluthor wrote:
By the way Vandal…why don’t you become a T-Nation writer, or Go_Heavy?

I also want to ask if there’s a program or policy, a way of training which you can adhere to almost like forever?

I mean, there are a thousand ways to put a nail in a piece of wood, but nothin beats the classical hammer when it comes down to do it simple and good, am I wrong?[/quote]

Here’s the answer to the first question. It’s a long one… I could never be a writer for anything, for the same reason I will never sell a record with the music I create. I don’t try to portray a acceptable or even likable image. To me image means nothing… examine that word for a second… “image”. The word is part of imagine, or imagination… it will never be something real. You cannot portray something that is real with an image. Therefore, I could never be a writer because, I would get fired with my first article… I would not write what people want to hear and it will most likely be against everything they believe or want to hear. Let alone, I’m a bad writer anyway and my spelling sucks. To be a writer you have to please an audiance, and with what I got to say will naturally piss you off because you do not want to hear it.

Second part. Follow the source. If your goal is asthetics and physique oriented, then I’d go with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Arnolds Routine… don’t do what he did, do like what he did.

1 - CW’s Principle he used… more frequency less failure ( rain your muscles as often as possible)

2 - CT Principle he used… more effort less program (use Arnold like intensity and heavy basic movements) He used a split routines, which helped him work on his asthetics and symmentry like he was carving himself out of stone.

3 - Arnold’s Principle… focus and determination (concentration when training and with no hesitation) He did not make excuse or let anything get in his way, he was like a fucking freight train when he was on the tracks, balls to the wall.

Now the strippers and dropsets are just quicker ways to intensity(preference)… its better an quicker than 1 set. But, one set is just as effective if you do enough of them. There is really no right or wrong way to lift. Most of it is goal and or genetic preference.

My only principle… is those who put more effort into practice are the ones who win all the awards… in every sense of the word. You give me a guy with the right mindset, there is no stopping him. The heart will kick your brain’s ass every time, then come back and give it another kick in the nutz and say… “I told you so”.

I could give you a headache trying to figure me out, I do things a little differently. Don’t try to figure me out… you’ll just hurt yourself. Basicly I’m a very calm guy that likes to be left alone, until someone wakes me up… then all hell breaks loose. I have nothing to prove, but to myself… and that should be your mindset. your only enemy is yourself and it was the only enemy you ever had.

The key to perservering over what you don’t think you can do is beating yourself. Once you can convince yourself that you can… then its just a matter of reality and time. There was never any doubt in any elite champions mind. They KNEW the were already the best, they just had to go through the motions and enjoy the ride.

68

[quote]louisluthor wrote:

I mean, I still have a dumb question to ask: if the biceps (and the triceps too,for the sake of argument, despite the fact that triceps presses and dips are cool) get big with isolation movements, like curls are, why can’t the chest get big too?

[/quote]

It can! You can make the chest grow with any movement. All depends on circumstances such as frequency, intensity, load, consistency, diet, rest, periodization, genetics, and about 892 more variables.

69

Ok…let’s take a small step back, breathe, count to one-hundred…thousand…millions…ok, one, two…99 thousand 999 hundres millions…one more…and now I am calm enough to explain.

Ok here it goes, simple and nice for you Lou:

You can get big out of performing ISOLATION exercises ONLY.

Oh My God…I can already drop my nice hot feijoadas and run before the Inquisition takes me to burn at the stake at the Iglesia Dos Santos…but the truth is, it’s simple logics.

The reason why compound exercises are so popular at mass building programs and methods is because they allow you to move big weights.

You see the body works fine. If a simple task doesn’t require more than 25% of your 1RM strength on a given muscle group, only a small percentage of the fibers work. You need to train with heavy loads to recruit the most motor units, and you need to lift fast, or try to lift fast, to do so.

That means that isolation exercises don’t even go much above that. If you can bench press a 1RM of 100 kilograms, odds are you can’t do chest flyes with more than 10 kilos on each arm. Barely 20% of your 1RM, right? So why bother doing it unless you want to trigger pre-exhaustion? No reason at all, right?

Wrong. DEAD wrong.

You see, your 1RM load for bench press shouldn’t be used to measure your 1RM strength for the chest. A bench press uses triceps and front delts as backup. reinforcements, to accomplish the lifting of such a challenging and extreme load, it is a compound exercise, so by definition, it is not your chest 1RM, it’s your Chest + Triceps + Triceps 1RM.

Now, some people may argue that until the weight doesn’t go over the first half of the movement, this is mid-height of the movement’s trajectory, the exercise is relying on the chest muscles, and the predominancy is still 70/30, in favor of the chest at the first third.

Well, that’s a very big load of bullshit.

When you bench press, even at the bottom of the movement, your triceps are helping with one third of the effort, and they take over as the weight goes up, so basically, you are using the starting power and the progressive acceleration that the triceps give you to accomplish the load.

Even if you are using wide-grip bench presses as an example for the counter-argument, you ain’t using the chest for more than 30-40% of the force output during the movement.

But still, most think that you cannot get big out of isolation exercises because they don’t generate enough stress or tension to force growth, at the very least, enough time under tension to cut up and get lean and ripped.

I however think differently.

If i use my same principle to chest flyes, i discover that my good load my pumping weight/spped, my sweet spot or my hot zone is to do 6-8 reps at a 10X0 tempo with cable flyes in which I load each cable with a resistance of 30 kilos and squeeze the 6-8 reps…then i rest for the time it takes me to strip off some weight, about 15-20% of it and squeeze out more reps, and then do it another time to repeat the same. Only when i think the pump is fading because the muscle is tired and the weight is being insufficient, I quickly do bench presses with a load I know will keep the pump at it’s desired level, so it doesn’t fade away or become a cramp, then max out, rack the weight, drop off some weight, do it again and maybe drop some weight off.

If you noticed it, this was a pre-exhaustion superset method in which I supersetted a drop-set of chest flyes with a drop set of bench presses. I don’t have a rule for how many drops, except to stop it when I feel that it ain’t working. You’ll know it when you grab the load after you have dropped it by 15% and you feel that the muscle is too burned up and weak, and also starting to numb up, to get anything from it other than a cramp or a muscle tear.

But even if you didn’t do the bench presses and you stuck to flyes, you would still grow out of it just as well as you would out of other methods.

Now, as for writing here, i don’t think the writers would like it if I started saying “Tempo doesn’t matter, volume is relative, use the force, Lou” and all…probably have me whacked. LOL

We need to ask Go Heavy if he could try it though…you never know…

70

[quote]Vandal__Savage wrote:

You see, your 1RM load for bench press shouldn’t be used to measure your 1RM strength for the chest. A bench press uses triceps and front delts as backup. reinforcements, to accomplish the lifting of such a challenging and extreme load, it is a compound exercise, so by definition, it is not your chest 1RM, it’s your Chest + Triceps + Triceps 1RM.

[/quote]

I have almost the exact same thing written about 500 posts ago… somewhere. I don’t want to go find it. But, Vandal is right on the money. You will never do a 225lb pec press when your bench press max is 225lb. I have no way of calculating the amount of weight that’s stressing the pecs and its not constant either… but it is alot, but you’re also stressing alot of muscles. Therefore, the isolation could be stressing more or less with less weight depending on all those variables again. Two of the important ones are focus and technique. You can destroy the hell out of your chest with 40lb decline flys and also a 185lb bench press… there are so many variables to it, I can’t explain it… would take me 75 pages. To sum it up though. The mind-muscle connection is a huge variable, technique and experience doing these lifts being the other.

Truth is, they are both great and they both suck… all depends on the execution. I can’t teach this, I can only do it. I can’t make somebody scream & hollar and keep pushing, I can push them and try but they will decide in the end what they want to do.

71

Hey Lou, what are you currently doing right now? What does your routines look like. I’m thinking about hitting some more isolation training here, I’ve been jumping around a little bit in my routines. I’ve been setting myself up for some high frequency iso-work. Probably about 3-4 times a week for certain muscles and probably 3 or so different routines.

I’ve done these in the past, sometimes they work if you time them right, sometimes they DON’T if the timing is all wrong.

You see, this is the thing. Everyone really wants the “end all be all” routine that they can just keep doing and it will give them results. There really isn’t one. I’ve done the exact same workouts and sometimes gotten results and sometimes not… alot of determining factors in there. Like timing, diet, how good was the intensity or effort for progression, all this kind of stuff.

What I would do if I were you is do this. Experiment alot and see where you respond best. Especially with exercises. I can’t tell anyone that the barbell curl or the bench press will build their bi’s & chest better than a concentrated fly or a strict isolation curl… you would think it would.

But, I have gotten better results on all 4. Sometimes when my chest was strong the bench was the way to go, when my chest is weak and the delts are taking over, then the flys are a much better option. Same with the curls. I’ve had periods where the preacher isolations were blowing up my arms and periods where they were doing nothing. You have to pick out a few routines that you’re good at and had success at.

You’re not always going to have the same success… that’s why your body adapts. You just can’t keep doing the same shit over and over and expect your body to always progress the same… this is where these plateaus occur and you need you try and mix your other stuff in.

Then again, you can’t just keep doing new stuff everyday, you’ll never get good at anything and you never really give your body a period to adapt. ROTATION of a few basic and effective exercises and routines is the key. Every once in awhile… sure… mix it up, spend a week or two doing nothing but isolations, maybe you get a little growth spurt there and recharge the batteries a little.

I’ll be switching to those frequent iso movement for a few splits here soon within the next day or so. So, if you’re looking for routine options besides dropsets, I’ll have some more ideas for you. I may even include iso drops about 4 times a week for some muscles I’m trying to accent… for a few sets.

Be careful of the pump, just getting a pump won’t make you grow, the routine and stress has to be an overload of what the body is use to… to force new growth. I get a nice chest pump everytime I drop down and crank out 50 push ups, there’s no growth off of that pump.

The pump just means there is blood in the muscle which is good. Overloading your adapted stress level is what forces the muscle to change, not pumping blood into it. This is why wrist rollers may give you a pump for a good while, then leave your forearms flat a few days later. That is mainly a lactic acid build up which is why they burn, and a false sense of new growth from the pump which is just really blood. This is not breaking down the muscle tissue and rebuilding it as you might think.

The overload of stress is what forces new growth, and keeping the overload constant over a period of time. Use the pump or lack of pump for a sign of rest needed. When you can’t get a pump, then you need to rest your muscles. You should be able to get a pump everytime you train. I train my calves daily and I get the pump every time. If I couldn’t get that, I would rest them.

72

Ok…Go heavy, yes, you do handle a lot of weight in the bench press, even if some muscles do help out-…it’s not a question of how much weight, but how much of it you really move.

Allow me to illustrate…after midpoint, the bench press derives into a tricpes exercise…from botom to mid-range is where the chest works the most, and even so, 30-35% of the stress is placed on the triceps and delts, and that is even for a wide bench press, which focuses on the pecs more. But more than the load, it’s more like how long.

You do 10 reps of wide grip bench presses with 200 pounds on the bar, and you only may have done the equivalent to 10 reps of chest flyes with 40-pound dumbells on each side.We aid that only during the first half od the rep is where the chest is under the real amount of stress to force growth. Means that if you lift 200 pounds per rep, in a 10-rep set, you only put 100 pounds of work in the chest, and you only get a realistic 80 pounds of direct stress. And if you took 1 second to go up and 1 to go down, you didn’t put 2 seconds of tension on the chest, or at least 2 seconds of focalized, specicif tension, you only did it during half of the phase, so you only get a realistic 1 second of tension for the chest.

The difference with the flyes is, the flyes put that same level of tension on the chest for not 1, but 2 seconds, at least if you have to go faster and loosen up on the form, for a second and a half, or a second and a quarter, you you get 25-50% more time under tension and stress, therefore you put more intensity into it, and you will get growth out of it.

Now you see why some people recommend doing “one and a half’s” for chest hypertrophy?

Now, training for the pump can’t be wrong, if you are able to tell the dfifference between the pump and the burn.

I know I am doing it right when I load heavy enough to feel the set from the second or the third rep. Lift hard lower hard. The lift fast or slow debate is bullshit, so is the lowering controlled or slow debate. That’s for comercial gyms and Biotest ads.

Think of lifting at the speed where you can move the most weight with control and perfect form, and aslo the tension should remain a constant.

I can load the bar at 200 pounds and move at a 1010 tempo for the bench press and feel the weight from rep #2, getting 7-8 reps per set, but loading the bar at 250 pounds and not bothering to count the duration of a phase, worked as well, and I got the same 7-8 reps. See how does that work?

The pump is good to know when you are doing things right. You can tell when you were lifting for strength and when you were lifting for growth by simply listening to your muscles.

I suggest you do so, buy a stetoscophe if you need to, just pay attention to your body.

Your mind, the so-called wisdom of the Iron Guru’s clones and heirs has betrayed you, so why not listen to your gut?

73

Here is the problem with TUT. Its difficult to relate the amount of stress put onto a muscle when comparing a few very heavy reps with little TUT and a bunch of lighter reps with more TUT. This is why TUT is bullshit!.. unless you relate it to the same load under tension. A powerlifter with 1 sec under tension will damage alot more muscle fiber than if he did a lighter load with more TUT.

Again, I believe it all comes down to a stress relation and overload… now the overload has to be constant or the body will not adapt to these changes with just a sporatic weight lifting routine. If the body thinks “holy shit, this mother fucker is making me lift this heavy ass shit that I really can’t handle, and constantly”… then the body makes a change.

I had an equasion for strength and hypertrophy gains awhile back…its in this thread somewhere. But its simple. It all comes down to stress and overload, and the time under it. They all relate to each other. TUT is useless unless the stress is an overload.

74

Hey Vandal or Lou, I got a new subject for you. This one has to do with the strength power relationship and therecruitment of certain muscle fibers, then rebuilding more fibers based on the load requirments of constant routines. this is something Chad Waterbury dipd into.

The idea being, that if you lift maximum type loads and at faster speeds, the body then creates more of these muscle type fibers. therefore, making it even easier to use these now added bigger type fibers to then try to hypertrophy them. So your building size on top of size. Powerlifters get the first size by adding the new fibers, but they don’t want them necessarily, so they arn’t going to try to hypertrophy them.

You can exercise the fibers you have til your limbs fall off, but creating newer and larger strands of the thicker breed of muscle only makes sense to me… and would be a huge emphasis on why heavy weight training under maximum type loads is so beneficial. This is why I do rest pauses with singles. I try to add the dense muscle fiber. Remeber Arnold was very dense in muscle composition and so is ronnie Coleman, this came from extremly heavy loads and fast lifting.

When you can briege the powerlifters dense and strong muscle with the bodubuilders aesthetic and bulking type muscles… is when you get that really full looking muscle. Very dense, very thick, very bulky. Very impressive.

75

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Here is the problem with TUT. Its difficult to relate the amount of stree put onto a muscle when comparing a few very heavy reps with little TUT and a bunch of lighter reps with more TUT. This is why TUT is bullshit!.. unless you relate it to the same load under tension. A powerlifter with 1 sec under tension will damage alot more muscle fiber than if he did a lighter load with more TUT.[/quote]

I think volume is better calculated with tonnage - aka sets x reps x load - instead of TUT etc. If you have 3x10@200lbs then your tonnage is 3x10x200=6000lbs. Now if you do 10x3 you would be able to use more weight…say 230lb. Still 3x10x230=6900lbs i.e a greater stress. Therefore, to match the anabolic response of 3x10@230lbs with 200lbs you’d need to add another set of 5 which would put you at 7000lbs, topping it by a bit.

Because if your previous workout has been 3x10@230lb, doing 3x10@200lb will be a waste, as you’re doing less work(not to mention with less weight).

As far as the original topic, supervolumes like 500 or 1000/day can really do amazing things in relatively brief periods of time by ‘popping out’ the muscles. But there must be good discipline and nutrition, as with anything. Also it’s better to work them in as a hybrid to keep your strength.

76

[quote]Majin wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Here is the problem with TUT. Its difficult to relate the amount of stree put onto a muscle when comparing a few very heavy reps with little TUT and a bunch of lighter reps with more TUT. This is why TUT is bullshit!.. unless you relate it to the same load under tension. A powerlifter with 1 sec under tension will damage alot more muscle fiber than if he did a lighter load with more TUT.

I think volume is better calculated with tonnage - aka sets x reps x load - instead of TUT etc. If you have 3x10@200lbs then your tonnage is 3x10x200=6000lbs. Now if you do 10x3 you would be able to use more weight…say 230lb. Still 3x10x230=6900lbs i.e a greater stress. Therefore, to match the anabolic response of 3x10@230lbs with 200lbs you’d need to add another set of 5 which would put you at 7000lbs, topping it by a bit.

Because if your previous workout has been 3x10@230lb, doing 3x10@200lb will be a waste, as you’re doing less work(not to mention with less weight).

As far as the original topic, supervolumes like 500 or 1000/day can really do amazing things in relatively brief periods of time by ‘popping out’ the muscles. But there must be good discipline and nutrition, as with anything. Also it’s better to work them in as a hybrid to keep your strength. [/quote]

This is good stuff here. This is what I’d like to get into.

Bench Press example A: 10 sets of 3 reps with 200lbs

10x3 at a TUT of ~2 sec per rep = ~60 seconds total TUT for the routine…

10x3 @ 200 Lbs = 6000 LBS @ ~60 seconds total TUT…

Approx~ 100LBS/sec.. for ~60sec of TUT

Bench Press example B: 6 sets of 10 reps with 100 LBS

6x10 at a TUT of ~2 sec per rep = ~120 seconds total TUT for the routine…

6x10 @ 100 LBS = 6000 LBS @ ~ 120sec of total TUT…

Approx~ 50LBS/sec.. for ~120sec of TUT

Now the volume is the same, 6000 LBS at 2 different rep ranges. The lighter range also is twice as long under tension.

Now with the volume the same… How can lifting 50 LBS per second possibly be more damaging than lifting 100LBS per second?

If I had a 6000 LB group of bricks, and 2 guys moved them in two different ways. There is no way that the guy who took twice as long to move that same pile got the better workout.

Can somebody please prove me wrong? I do not see how volume can measure a workout. It has to be measured in volume & time.

There has to be a direct relationship between total load or volume and time.

My conclusion was always the greater the volume and the shorter the time… then the MORE, the BETTER. the superior routine either takes less time with the same volume, or takes more volume in the same time.

77

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Majin wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Here is the problem with TUT. Its difficult to relate the amount of stree put onto a muscle when comparing a few very heavy reps with little TUT and a bunch of lighter reps with more TUT. This is why TUT is bullshit!.. unless you relate it to the same load under tension. A powerlifter with 1 sec under tension will damage alot more muscle fiber than if he did a lighter load with more TUT.

I think volume is better calculated with tonnage - aka sets x reps x load - instead of TUT etc. If you have 3x10@200lbs then your tonnage is 3x10x200=6000lbs. Now if you do 10x3 you would be able to use more weight…say 230lb. Still 3x10x230=6900lbs i.e a greater stress. Therefore, to match the anabolic response of 3x10@230lbs with 200lbs you’d need to add another set of 5 which would put you at 7000lbs, topping it by a bit.

Because if your previous workout has been 3x10@230lb, doing 3x10@200lb will be a waste, as you’re doing less work(not to mention with less weight).

As far as the original topic, supervolumes like 500 or 1000/day can really do amazing things in relatively brief periods of time by ‘popping out’ the muscles. But there must be good discipline and nutrition, as with anything. Also it’s better to work them in as a hybrid to keep your strength.

This is good stuff here. This is what I’d like to get into.

Bench Press example A: 10 sets of 3 reps with 200lbs

10x3 at a TUT of ~2 sec per rep = ~60 seconds total TUT for the routine…

10x3 @ 200 Lbs = 6000 LBS @ ~60 seconds total TUT…

Approx~ 100LBS/sec.. for ~60sec of TUT

Bench Press example B: 6 sets of 10 reps with 100 LBS

6x10 at a TUT of ~2 sec per rep = ~120 seconds total TUT for the routine…

6x10 @ 100 LBS = 6000 LBS @ ~ 120sec of total TUT…

Approx~ 50LBS/sec.. for ~120sec of TUT

Now the volume is the same, 6000 LBS at 2 different rep ranges. The lighter range also is twice as long under tension.

Now with the volume the same… How can lifting 50 LBS per second possibly be more damaging than lifting 100LBS per second?

If I had a 6000 LB group of bricks, and 2 guys moved them in two different ways. There is no way that the guy who took twice as long to move that same pile got the better workout.

Can somebody please prove me wrong? I do not see how volume can measure a workout. It has to be measured in volume & time.

There has to be a direct relationship between total load or volume and time.

My conclusion was always the greater the volume and the shorter the time… then the MORE, the BETTER. the superior routine either takes less time with the same volume, or takes more volume in the same time.[/quote]

Ok, I need to clarify something.

Majin, when you said that if two guys were handling a pile of bricks to load them in a truck, you’d prefer to think the guy which carried the most bricks per lift, (more load per repetition) in less time got a workout far better than the guy lifting half the load per repetition and taking twice as much time to complete the task, i assume you mean that he could do as the first guy could, they were in equal circumstances and condition, right?

If you take into account that some people don’t know or don’t train like that, they need to balance their initial inability to handle heavier loads per rep by simply handling more time under tension per rep. As long as they work to their limits and give it their best, both approaches are right.

Now, I too think that you should try to move as much weight as possible. Difference is, i don’t think that it has to necesarily mean move more weight per rep, although that can happen sometimes, under some parameters.

I said that I can lift 200 pounds on a 15-reps set. That’s 3000 pounds of work per set. They are very heavy reps, I feel the strain from rep number 2 to rep 15, and by rep 12 I am about to just let the damn bar drop even if I am committing suicide-by-bench-press with that.

I get to squeeze about 6-8 sets like this per workout, three times a week. so let’s say it’s an average of 7 sets x 3000 pounds, that’s 21000 pounds per workout, and that’s 63000 pounds per week.

Now, I can also lift 350 pounds in a set of 5 reps. That’s 1750 pounds per set. I can squeeze something like 10-12 sets with this, so it’s 19250 pounds per workout and that’s three times a week so that would be 57750 pounds per week.

I can give it to you that I lift more load by rep in the second option, but in terms of total work accumulated per week, or per session, even per set, option 1 is superior, even if the tempos are exactly the same, or the Time Under Tension sums up to the same amount for them both at the end of the week, which it doesn’t, by the way.

I don’t mean to say that lifting heavier loads per rep doesn’t work for you, I just say that for some people, and this is due to genetics, lifestyle, psychology and another dozen factors, a different scheme works for them and another one works for you.

My idea is to find the way to move more weight, to accumulate work.

Now, I can agree that at some point, your experience and the body’s adaptation will force you to move away from WORK VOLUME which is my take,more accumulated work, more load moved for the session and the week, towards WORK INTENSITY, which is yours, to more more weight per rep…you just have to know if you are seeing the glass half-empty or half-full judging from your level of training.

I would definetly think your option is for more advanced trainees, but let’s remember that when i gave this advice to lou, he struck me as a begginner who moved into the Intermediate level…

78

Ok, Mr. Majin and Mr. Vandal, perhaps now you are the ones missing the forest for the trees, as you say. I may be about to post something really stupid, but I think you are fighting over something where you both are right, as is Mr. Go Heavy.

Mr. Majin says that he prefers to lift heavy, to lift more weight per effort or repetition, which is a motion seconded by Mr. Go Heavy, and then Mr. Vandal says that it is better to lift the most weight per set and per session, even if the weight per rep decreases.

My question is: ? aren?t drop sets supposed to be the solution for this, the middle point or sum of parts for such ideologies?

If you lift very heavy, like 4-6 reps and you drop the load just enough to keep doing heavy reps, this is, the drop is not much so you cannot break out of the 4-6 reps range and the effort still feels like a maximal effort set, by just dropping the load one or two more times, you get about 10-12 reps, perhaps 15-20 if you select a range like 6-8 reps per load, and you still move the most weight per set while moving the most weight per repetition, right?

If Mr. Vandal likes to bench press 200 pounds per 15 reps but Mr. Majin prefers 300 pounds for a 5-reps set, doing 300 pounds per 3-5 reps, dropping down to 275 pounds and do another 3-5 reps and then dropping down the load one last time to do 3-5 more reps puts you in the 9-15 reps range, more likely 12-15 total reps, and even if you get 3 less reps, you move more weight, you are moving the weight an average of 12 times, 4 times per load, and you get 300 x4 + 275 x4 + 250 x4 = 1200 + 1100 + 1000 = 3300 pounds, it even surpasses Mr. Vandal?s idea of ?the most weight per set with the lesser number of reps? and he moves 3000 pounds per set, while this is 300 pounds heavier, and you are also quite close to the 300 pounds per rep of Mr. Majin, well, you are there for the first 4 reps, and then by the last attempt, you drop down to just like 16,66% less of the initial load, which is 250 pounds in the last 4 reps?so you still keep a good level of tension all throughout the set, right? I don?t know if my line of reasoning can be correct about this.

How would Mr. Majin consider the idea of pre-exhaust training? I like Mr. Vandal?s idea to do drop sets for the isolation exercise and then proceed to the compound one and try to do at least one drop on it. It sounds very intense, and seems to respect the principles you both expose, as well as Mr. Go Heavy?s principle of the 1-10 method of accommodating the intensity and load to the accumulation of stress and tiredness and the drop of energy levels, yet maximizing the force output in every load by maxing out on reps for it.

I await your input eagerly, and will continue to train as I am, which is actually Mr. Go Heavy?s 1-10 method, for 4-6 sets followed by Mr. Vandals Maximal output sets, which is like mixing up Westside?s Maximal Effort day with the Repetitions day in one session. Feels great but I am looking for ward to the next best thing.

I wanted to ask. Isn?t it possible to keep using the same 2 or 3 programs in rotation forever? I have heard some people say that bodybuilding is like going from A to C, you may go through or skip B, but if you only need to work between A and C, you don?t need D, E, and F or whatever other programs are out there… .This comes from an author of this website who told me that most people only need to rotate between two programs, or three, sometimes four if they are really stubborn hard-gainers, to get big and strong.

Pretty much he said that such is the reason why GVT and 5x5 never get old, just customized, but they can be alternated for life and still keep you getting bigger and bigger.

I also would liek to hear for you three, and from Mr. Pump what do you all think of how you should use 21’s partial reps, chet reps, 1-and-1/2’s (that meant “one-and-a-half’s reps”), in which exercises, for which muscles and before or after which other method.

By the way, I wanted to say, without intention to offend anyone or sound ungrateful or rude, that I am not a beginner moving to intermediate, i am ready to leave intermediate and go into serious lifting, because I don’t think there’s an intermediate level at all, just like boxing, amateurs and professionals.

Please think of me as someone who can put himself into any routine, and give it my best, go pedal to the metal in any routine, without screwing it up.

I do wish to thank you all, I have learned more with this thread than with the bodybuilding books I have consulted before. I want to keep this thread going and I have even begun to e-mail my friends aabout T-Nation and this thread, and you gentlemen, to help them too.

Sometime a wise man wrote that a man is not measured for what he does for himself, but for what he does for others. By such measure, you are making me feel like I stand in the shoulders of giants.

God Bless You All

79

I havn’t even read the two previous posts… because I noticed you guys thought that Majin had that brick analagy, but it was actually me. somehow the quotes must have got mixed up on you guys. So, I’ll have to go back and read these posts and see what the problem is.

Majin made a statement that i pretty much agree with about tonnage. But I wanted to extrapolate further on that and see where the relationship ties in to TUT and total time in the workout and overtime. I’m working on a formula for strength and hypertrophy as we speak… so bare with me.

80

[quote]Vandal__Savage wrote:

I get to squeeze about 6-8 sets like this per workout, three times a week. so let’s say it’s an average of 7 sets x 3000 pounds, that’s 21000 pounds per workout, and that’s 63000 pounds per week.

Now, I can also lift 350 pounds in a set of 5 reps. That’s 1750 pounds per set. I can squeeze something like 10-12 sets with this, so it’s 19250 pounds per workout and that’s three times a week so that would be 57750 pounds per week.

I can give it to you that I lift more load by rep in the second option, but in terms of total work accumulated per week, or per session, even per set, option 1 is superior, even if the tempos are exactly the same, or the Time Under Tension sums up to the same amount for them both at the end of the week, which it doesn’t, by the way.

[/quote]

Finally! I get to disagree with you.

You can’t say that a lower volume of work is inferior to a higher volume of work simply based on that factor of “volume”. This is the point I’m trying to argue and I’m playing devil’s advocate here. Volume alone doesn’t say it all. It has to do with total time, and most importantly the “VALUE” of the heavy load lifted in the lower volume workout.

You can’t tell me that doing 5000 bench presses a week with 10 LBS on the bar is “Superior” to doing 50 bench presses with 500 LBS on the bar. The first workout has a total volume of 50,000 LBS. The second has a total volume of 25,000. I used extremes to illustrate my point.

My argument will favor the powerlifter. Because I believe they have the more vaulable workouts by using the maximum loads. this is why certain bodybuilders such as myself believe in using maximum loads, I even rest pause those, or using dropsets and stripper sets to try to match the value of the maximum loads in one set.

My argument is that the heavier and maximum loads are not getting a value calculated correctly for their lifts. This is why I think TUT is bullshit and so is volume for that matter. Total volume means nothing when you cannot calculate a value for the loads lifted. also the faster reps will have a lesser TUT and this is also what tends to build and use the largest fibres by have very little TUT.

Anybody? Whose gonna get in the ring with me and battle this one out. I’m trying to come up with a math formula to prove this. I’m working on it… I’m a math nerd so hang in there, I’ll have this figured out soon.

Anyway I’m trying to relate a formula for intensity to volume and time, then decide which is the best bet for strength and hypertrophy.