Alternate Sets or Straight Sets?

Training Bodybuilding
21

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]Bmacres wrote:
I would recommend alternating your alternations, meaning sometimes superset and sometimes don’t. There are two forms of hypertrophy: Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofibrillar hypertrophy. In sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, you are using the bodybuilder technique of staying in a relatively lighter rep range (probably 8-15) and using higher volume to establish the ‘pump’, which basically stretches the muscle cell forcing it to adapt to a bigger size. Myofibrellar hypertrophy involves heavier weights resulting in lower rep schemes(1-5) which stresses the muscle so much a pump is not necessarily formed, but the actin and myosin that are the contractile components of muscle tissue increase in number. More actin and myosin=more muscle strength. Basically, take advantage of both if you want maximum results. Favor the pump aspect, but understand heavier weights=more muscle. [/quote]

i like this answer im going to look into this[/quote]

lol why? Because he used multi-syllable words?

22

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]Bmacres wrote:
I would recommend alternating your alternations, meaning sometimes superset and sometimes don’t. There are two forms of hypertrophy: Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofibrillar hypertrophy. In sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, you are using the bodybuilder technique of staying in a relatively lighter rep range (probably 8-15) and using higher volume to establish the ‘pump’, which basically stretches the muscle cell forcing it to adapt to a bigger size. Myofibrellar hypertrophy involves heavier weights resulting in lower rep schemes(1-5) which stresses the muscle so much a pump is not necessarily formed, but the actin and myosin that are the contractile components of muscle tissue increase in number. More actin and myosin=more muscle strength. Basically, take advantage of both if you want maximum results. Favor the pump aspect, but understand heavier weights=more muscle. [/quote]

i like this answer im going to look into this[/quote]

lol why? Because he used multi-syllable words? [/quote]

lol i guess it sounded nice, not like something i was going to buy immediately but just something that haha sounded so scientific that i wanted to research it

23

I don’t expect you to take everything you’re fed; you absolutely shouldn’t. The fact that anybody on here can post whatever they want means that a lot of bullshit floats around. The concept listed above, however, is not considered ‘bullshit’. I used the terminology within that post not to sound smart, but to use the words that you may encounter while you research my claims, which you should do whenever you’re considering someone’s advice.
In terms of my advice, change is good until you find what works. You don’t necessarily want to constantly alternate your alternations. Use that as a tool to find what works for you. Once you do, go with it.

And Bones, the biggest words I used were around hypertrophy. I feel like the rest was pretty basic. Your response made it clear how useful you are. You must feel pretty ‘big’,though, behind that keyboard. The interwebz is fun, huh?

24

[quote]Bmacres wrote:
I would recommend alternating your alternations, meaning sometimes superset and sometimes don’t. There are two forms of hypertrophy: Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofibrillar hypertrophy. In sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, you are using the bodybuilder technique of staying in a relatively lighter rep range (probably 8-15) and using higher volume to establish the ‘pump’, which basically stretches the muscle cell forcing it to adapt to a bigger size. Myofibrellar hypertrophy involves heavier weights resulting in lower rep schemes(1-5) which stresses the muscle so much a pump is not necessarily formed, but the actin and myosin that are the contractile components of muscle tissue increase in number. More actin and myosin=more muscle strength. Basically, take advantage of both if you want maximum results. Favor the pump aspect, but understand heavier weights=more muscle. [/quote]

The main problem I have with the above ^^^, is that it makes newbies feel that they need to do something different all the time lol. The biggest mistake a newbie can make is changing the variables all the time when is reality, a basic rep range (e.g. between 6-12) is perfectly fine. Not only “fine”, but likely better than the gains they’d make worrying about the variables all the time.

I think it’s a mistake to make extreme distinctions, and just go for somewhere in-between or whatever seems to be working…and do it over and over and over again…

25

i guess im just going to have to try both out for a decent amount of time haha

26

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Its really up to individual preference. I have had great success with both, but have used modified compound sets for many years. I like them for the efficiency and the pump on antagonistic pairings. You have to be in shape cardiovascular-wise though or they will whip your ass. This is a tree in the forest… don’t stop and stare at the tree, keep walking through the forest.[/quote]

ever mention you are my newfound hero?

27

[quote]MODOK wrote:
but have used modified compound sets for many years. I like them for the efficiency and the pump on antagonistic pairings. You have to be in shape cardiovascular-wise though or they will whip your ass. This is a tree in the forest… don’t stop and stare at the tree, keep walking through the forest.[/quote]

by modified compound sets, do you mean things relating to giant sets or superseting or alternating exercises?

28

okay i just looked up a definition for antagonistic pairings and now realize what you mean

29


LOL @ Bonez’s anger at bro-science. I can just imagine raging a la Skeletor.

30

[quote]Bmacres wrote:
I would recommend alternating your alternations, meaning sometimes superset and sometimes don’t. There are two forms of hypertrophy: Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofibrillar hypertrophy. In sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, you are using the bodybuilder technique of staying in a relatively lighter rep range (probably 8-15) and using higher volume to establish the ‘pump’, which basically stretches the muscle cell forcing it to adapt to a bigger size. Myofibrellar hypertrophy involves heavier weights resulting in lower rep schemes(1-5) which stresses the muscle so much a pump is not necessarily formed, but the actin and myosin that are the contractile components of muscle tissue increase in number. More actin and myosin=more muscle strength. Basically, take advantage of both if you want maximum results. Favor the pump aspect, but understand heavier weights=more muscle. [/quote]

This could have been copied and pasted from the wikipedia article on hypertrophy. lmao

31

[quote]Bmacres wrote:
I don’t expect you to take everything you’re fed; you absolutely shouldn’t. The fact that anybody on here can post whatever they want means that a lot of bullshit floats around. The concept listed above, however, is not considered ‘bullshit’. I used the terminology within that post not to sound smart, but to use the words that you may encounter while you research my claims, which you should do whenever you’re considering someone’s advice.
In terms of my advice, change is good until you find what works. You don’t necessarily want to constantly alternate your alternations. Use that as a tool to find what works for you. Once you do, go with it.

And Bones, the biggest words I used were around hypertrophy. I feel like the rest was pretty basic. Your response made it clear how useful you are. You must feel pretty ‘big’,though, behind that keyboard. The interwebz is fun, huh? [/quote]

This is just a long way to say that “what I wrote I have no way to prove and was simply hoping that no one would notice”

If what you wrote isnt bullshit why did you spend 10 lines SAYING that its not bullshit instead of a few lines PROVING that its not.

32

I was using that paragraph to make sure he understood two things: One, that he shouldn’t just take in information blindly without following through with at least some kind of research. Two, that I didn’t mean for him to constantly alternate his supersets, just to do so until he finds what works for him.

And Jesus Christ Bones, I don’t know what your damage is but you need to chill, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. I get that youre a hardcore member and are trying to filter the forums for assholes but I can tell you my head and body are in the right place. Last thing anybody wants is a bean pole with a degree spouting off information like he owns the place, and I completely agree with that. I’ve been training a long time, though and have tried a lot of different things. Different variables create different results with different people. I’m not preaching constant change, but change is sometimes necessary to find what works. And I’m sorry man, but sometimes the “GARRR SCIENCE IS COOL” books are right. I can’t prove what I’ve claimed over a forum, but simply put muscles grow in two ways: Increase the size of muscle cells(higher reps forcing blood, the pump) or increasing their number(lower reps, strength and power building). He has to try things to find what works. If he has, then fuck everything I’ve said and go with it because it’s working. If not, then take what I’ve said and just think about it.

Best of lifting

Edit: I’d also like to take back my sleight to you, bones, from a previous post on this forum. Your posts around here actually make me laugh but it’s different when on the receiving end. I’ll sack up and be less childish/pussified.

33

What I did to catch my biceps up after not training them for a while:
concentration curls every workout, two sets heavy but not max reps, then have a regular arm day–3 exercises 4 sets each for biceps, worked great and am getting new size.

p.s. been a lurker for at least 5years, glad to be here guys.

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]TheDudeAbides wrote:

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:
question about alternating sets or straight sets

okay so i just started a higher frequency routine where i workout chest and back and arms twice a week
heres the routine
monday - chest back arms
tuesday - legs
wednesday - shoulders arms
friday - chest back and arms

anyways thats not important my question is:
i do 2 exercises for chest and back each for each chest back and arm day, should i alternate sets of chest and back exercises or finish all sets of one chest exercise then move to a back exercise and finish all sets before moving to the second chest exercise and same with the last back exercise?

i always alternate the sets of arm workouts just for pump, and thats the only reason im asking about the set scheme, is because i know id get a bigger and better pump if i alternated sets, but i have noticed when i finish one chest exercise then move onto the back exercise then by the time i hit my next chest exercise im more recovered and ready to hit heavier weight?

which do you guys prefer or think i should do?
[/quote]

I’m interested in what exercises you plan on doing.[/quote]

for chest back and arms i do this:

flat barbell bench
weighted pullups (narrow grip palms faceing eachother parallel)
incline barbell bench
wide grip rows
barbell curl (45lb bar)(slightly wider than shoulder width)
overhead tricep extentions (since we dont have dumbells i just put weights on one side of a 25 lb straight bar and lift it over my head like a dumbell tricep extention with two arms.)

thats the first workout the second time in the week that i hit chest back and arms looks like this

incline barbell bench
wide grip lat pulldown
weighted dips
one arm rows reverse grip (kind of like the same grip youd use for a chinup with palms up except doing a row)
concentration curls
one arm tricep extentions with the rope on a pully system

i also do arms with shoulders and on that day i do this:

skull crushers
preacher curls

i do 3-4 sets on everything that i workout more than once a week and my reps may very weekly from 2-10
[/quote]

34

Actually got the idea from CT, bastardized verzion of his arm spill, I sub conc curls for eccentric-less

35

[quote]Bmacres wrote:
I was using that paragraph to make sure he understood two things: One, that he shouldn’t just take in information blindly without following through with at least some kind of research. Two, that I didn’t mean for him to constantly alternate his supersets, just to do so until he finds what works for him.

And Jesus Christ Bones, I don’t know what your damage is but you need to chill, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. I get that youre a hardcore member and are trying to filter the forums for assholes but I can tell you my head and body are in the right place. Last thing anybody wants is a bean pole with a degree spouting off information like he owns the place, and I completely agree with that. I’ve been training a long time, though and have tried a lot of different things. Different variables create different results with different people. I’m not preaching constant change, but change is sometimes necessary to find what works. And I’m sorry man, but sometimes the “GARRR SCIENCE IS COOL” books are right. I can’t prove what I’ve claimed over a forum, but simply put muscles grow in two ways: Increase the size of muscle cells(higher reps forcing blood, the pump) or increasing their number(lower reps, strength and power building). He has to try things to find what works. If he has, then fuck everything I’ve said and go with it because it’s working. If not, then take what I’ve said and just think about it.

Best of lifting

Edit: I’d also like to take back my sleight to you, bones, from a previous post on this forum. Your posts around here actually make me laugh but it’s different when on the receiving end. I’ll sack up and be less childish/pussified.[/quote]

I need to chill? There is nothing ‘unchill’ about me. I simply called your post about sarcoplasmic hypertrophy bullshit, and you decided that I was bullying you. If I wanted to bully you I would have.

Sarcoplasmic vs Myofibrillar (sp) hypertrophy is bullshit thats been perpetuated by the “bodybuilders are weak crowd” for a real long time. You should take your own advice and not believe everything that you read.

If all you meant was that people should train in different rep ranges periodically to prevent stagnation then you should have just left it at that and kept the pseudo-science bullshit where it belongs. In the trash.

36

Understood, but I would consider “Go fuck yourself with this bullshit” an ‘unchill’ answer. Had you simply said at first what you had just posted, I would have completely understood where you are coming from. Being a dick won’t help at all with progress.

I in no way intended to make it sound like bodybuilders are weak; not in the slightest. Most of them take advantage of “some heavy ass weight.” And though I agree that it can be hard to take in the idea of sarcoplasmic vs. myfibriller hypertrophy, given that most studies involved animals(including housecats… wow), it is something that shouldn’t necessarily be ignored. These studies have results and these results must be interpreted to explain the findings. Is it absolutely 100% correct? Probably not, but it’s the best biology has for us right now. When you give a response such as “Go fuck yourself with this bullshit”, what the fuck do you expect me to say? Offer something.

37

[quote]Bmacres wrote:
Understood, but I would consider “Go fuck yourself with this bullshit” an ‘unchill’ answer. Had you simply said at first what you had just posted, I would have completely understood where you are coming from. Being a dick won’t help at all with progress.

I in no way intended to make it sound like bodybuilders are weak; not in the slightest. Most of them take advantage of “some heavy ass weight.” And though I agree that it can be hard to take in the idea of sarcoplasmic vs. myfibriller hypertrophy, given that most studies involved animals(including housecats… wow), it is something that shouldn’t necessarily be ignored. These studies have results and these results must be interpreted to explain the findings. Is it absolutely 100% correct? Probably not, but it’s the best biology has for us right now. When you give a response such as “Go fuck yourself with this bullshit”, what the fuck do you expect me to say? Offer something.[/quote]

Bonez is a really smart dude and he has a posting style that makes the forum interesting. you can leave your feelingz out of the interwebz.

38

[quote]CircaThursday wrote:

[quote]Bmacres wrote:
Understood, but I would consider “Go fuck yourself with this bullshit” an ‘unchill’ answer. Had you simply said at first what you had just posted, I would have completely understood where you are coming from. Being a dick won’t help at all with progress.

I in no way intended to make it sound like bodybuilders are weak; not in the slightest. Most of them take advantage of “some heavy ass weight.” And though I agree that it can be hard to take in the idea of sarcoplasmic vs. myfibriller hypertrophy, given that most studies involved animals(including housecats… wow), it is something that shouldn’t necessarily be ignored. These studies have results and these results must be interpreted to explain the findings. Is it absolutely 100% correct? Probably not, but it’s the best biology has for us right now. When you give a response such as “Go fuck yourself with this bullshit”, what the fuck do you expect me to say? Offer something.[/quote]

Bonez is a really smart dude and he has a posting style that makes the forum interesting. you can leave your feelingz out of the interwebz.
[/quote]
lol yeah I’m figuring that out; I’m not a big forum person. Bonez is a smart dude and that’s exactly why I keep responding. I could easily just leave and get all pissy but I want his interaction because it does make it interesting.