“Sets of 10 reps are as pointless for females as 20s are for males who are trying to get stronger. Any weight a male trainee can do for 20 reps is not heavy, even though it may feel like shit at the end of the set. If force production is strength, a weight that requires such sub-maximal force production that it can be done for 20 reps is not heavy enough to drive a strength adaptation for any significant length of time.”
This is the point I was trying to make, made by someone with more credibility (I think?).
Also, irrespective of the question of how to “maximize growth” – which, you know, is kind of hard to prove either way – is the question of measurable progress. My least productive weeks and months in the gym were when I consciously tried to train for “hypertrophy” by getting a lot of reps with short rests, going for a “pump” – e.g., the old pyramid workout. I’d go hard on the first set with a light weight and then all my subsequent sets would be shit because of cumulative fatigue, even as I tried to go heavier. I was lifting in the “hypertophy rep range” and I was eating in a caloric surplus, but it’s kind of hard to notice 1/4 lb of muscle growth per week in the mirror, and as I struggled to add significant weight or reps to my lifts, it was difficult to know if I was progressing at all.
[/quote]
Lol! This is exactly why I’ve said so many times:
DON’T USE THESE METHODS EXCLUSIVELY UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU ARE TRAINING FOR HYPERTROPHY!!!
I’ll expand on other stuff later when I have more time.
[quote]craze9 wrote:
What I have seen is guys put hundreds of lbs on their squat in just a few weeks, using multiple heavy sets multiple times per week.
[/quote]
I agree with what you are saying but outside of a detrained guy starting well below their max, I have never seen this happen (assuming no drug use)
Interesting thread.
It would appear that the only way to build huuuuuge legs is to squat.
I had better inform John Meadows straight away as he no longer squats at all. He doesn’t deadlift either. Interesting no one even mentioned deadlift variations.
I guess all those intensive sets of Leg Press, Hack Squat Machine, Romanian Deadlifts, Leg Curls, Bulgarian Split Squats and Calf Raises were a complete waste of time.
To the OP who is most likely completely confused by this absurd thread. Your legs will grow depending on your genetics. Your whole body will grow optimally if you choose a balanced routine and eat enough protein. The rest is up to genetics. Some guys have huge legs yet rarely ever train them. Others make them a priority yet see little results. This is just how it is after the initial early gains. Some muscles respond better then others and there is nothing you can do to change that.
Also, irrespective of the question of how to “maximize growth” – which, you know, is kind of hard to prove either way – is the question of measurable progress. My least productive weeks and months in the gym were when I consciously tried to train for “hypertrophy” by getting a lot of reps with short rests, going for a “pump” – e.g., the old pyramid workout. I’d go hard on the first set with a light weight and then all my subsequent sets would be shit because of cumulative fatigue, even as I tried to go heavier. I was lifting in the “hypertophy rep range” and I was eating in a caloric surplus, but it’s kind of hard to notice 1/4 lb of muscle growth per week in the mirror, and as I struggled to add significant weight or reps to my lifts, it was difficult to know if I was progressing at all.
[/quote]
Lol! This is exactly why I’ve said so many times:
DON’T USE THESE METHODS EXCLUSIVELY UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU ARE TRAINING FOR HYPERTROPHY!!!
I’ll expand on other stuff later when I have more time.[/quote]
Pyramiding is done like this:
E.g., bench: working up to 315 for reps
135 x 12, 225 x 8, 275 x 6, 315 x max(around 4-6reps or even more if possible or if feeling strong or getting a bro spot, add another 10-20lbs and go for a double or whatever).
It is not a “method”. It is just a logical way of working up to 1-2 top sets. I don’t know which author gave you the idea of taking all the sets to failure, but he is WRONG.
We’re using multiple definitions of “strength”, which creates confusion. E.g. Punisher’s claim that lifting more weight on the bar does not equal “stronger.” According to the definition of strength = the ability to exert force against an external resistance, that isn’t correct.
Wouldn’t you agree there is a relationship between neuromuscular efficiency and the “potential for hypertrophy”? As much as someone didn’t like that term, the point is that a skinny guy who has spent some time – even just a few weeks – practicing the squat, loading weight on the bar, getting STRONGER at the movement, is in a better position to build muscle than a skinny guy who has not done that, and just jumps right into higher volume, shorter rest, TUT lifting. [/quote]
No. The amount of weigh has no bearing on how fast he will grow. If this were the case, anyone can strap up and do shrug holds with 800lbs and get big traps. Improving technique is what he should be doing. Adding weight over time or lowering reps while adding weight weekly will suffice for growth provided he pushes his muscles to the max. I love lift206’s definition of technique:
[quote]lift206 wrote:
Technique is the ability to recruit muscles to perform a specific movement. When a person has “form breakdown”, no set/rep scheme will help until they learn HOW to properly execute the lift and HOW to recruit those muscles. [/quote]
Improving neural efficiency is an entirely different thing all together.
And look, I have said before… you guys think in extremes. EXTREMES!!! LOL! Why does a suggestion of doing higher reps automatically translate into high volume, short rest, TUT, constant tension, blah blah blah…?
Ok, this is the problem.
Again for the umpteenth time, THERE IS NO FUCKING HYPERTROPHY REP RANGE! Do you see why I keep repeating this? It’s good that you’ve experienced this for yourself. The REASON why some rep ranges are better for certain muscle groups is because it’s easier to focus on using the intended muscles to move the weight since it’s lighter. Try doing a 3rm on side raises and see what happens.
The pump indicates how well you are using the intended muscles to move the weights. For example, I can get a pump in my delts by doing heavy side raises for sets of 6 reps because I squeeze the living shit out of them at contraction while making a stupid face. Others will get their traps pumped up instead.
Anything other than that is speculative, which means, yes, get a pump after your heavy sets, don’t make that the focus of your workout. If your mmc is good, you WILL get a pump.
Short rest periods are utilized to create sufficient fatigue in the muscles. You don’t have to purposefully use them if it’s going to affect performance.
That depends on how well one is conditioned to handle higher reps.
But again, I’m NOT saying that only high reps must be utilized. I’ve said many times people can grow on ANY program or progression model as long as the effort is there.
[quote]Angus1 wrote:
Interesting thread.
It would appear that the only way to build huuuuuge legs is to squat.
I had better inform John Meadows straight away as he no longer squats at all. He doesn’t deadlift either. Interesting no one even mentioned deadlift variations.
I guess all those intensive sets of Leg Press, Hack Squat Machine, Romanian Deadlifts, Leg Curls, Bulgarian Split Squats and Calf Raises were a complete waste of time.
To the OP who is most likely completely confused by this absurd thread. Your legs will grow depending on your genetics. Your whole body will grow optimally if you choose a balanced routine and eat enough protein. The rest is up to genetics. Some guys have huge legs yet rarely ever train them. Others make them a priority yet see little results. This is just how it is after the initial early gains. Some muscles respond better then others and there is nothing you can do to change that. [/quote]
Dorian Yates would be another great example.
You’ve brought up a great point, and it’s something I lament as well. For some reason, the powerlifts have pervaded all of lifting, and there is this idea that every trainee, regardless of goals, HAS TO squat, bench and deadlift. Somehow, there is just some sort of magical quality these lifts have that can’t be replicated in any way, and any alterations made to them just makes them worse.
The deadlift especially blows my mind, due to the completely arbitrary nature of the movement.
[quote]Angus1 wrote:
Interesting thread.
It would appear that the only way to build huuuuuge legs is to squat.
I had better inform John Meadows straight away as he no longer squats at all. He doesn’t deadlift either. Interesting no one even mentioned deadlift variations.
I guess all those intensive sets of Leg Press, Hack Squat Machine, Romanian Deadlifts, Leg Curls, Bulgarian Split Squats and Calf Raises were a complete waste of time.
To the OP who is most likely completely confused by this absurd thread. Your legs will grow depending on your genetics. Your whole body will grow optimally if you choose a balanced routine and eat enough protein. The rest is up to genetics. Some guys have huge legs yet rarely ever train them. Others make them a priority yet see little results. This is just how it is after the initial early gains. Some muscles respond better then others and there is nothing you can do to change that. [/quote]
Dorian Yates would be another great example.
You’ve brought up a great point, and it’s something I lament as well. For some reason, the powerlifts have pervaded all of lifting, and there is this idea that every trainee, regardless of goals, HAS TO squat, bench and deadlift. Somehow, there is just some sort of magical quality these lifts have that can’t be replicated in any way, and any alterations made to them just makes them worse.
The deadlift especially blows my mind, due to the completely arbitrary nature of the movement.
[/quote]
While I share some of your angst, I think there is a silver lining. Since a huge majority of lifters utilize these lifts, it creates somewhat of a universal benchmark which can serve as a tool gauge to progress, weaknesses, and strengths in comparison to other lifters, even if varying degrees of technical proficiency make it a less than accurate assessment. I don’t mean utilizing a comparison for pissing contest purposes per say, but as a means of figuring out areas where an individual’s training may be working or lacking.
56 years old have weight trained off and on since i was 14
do to life choices and issues
i would train for few years or so then stop
jefferson lifts squats deadlifts sets of 12[program came with weight sets] legs grew
time in military lots of running ,walking pt. legs shrank,but got hard
got out military stopped running ,squats,deadlifts ramping weight decreasing reps[12 to 6] legs grew
party time no lifting,trained martial arts and fighting legs shrank got hard
few years later weights again leg extensions, leg curls, heavy ,no squats legs grew
family ,issues quit again
currently front squats superseted with back squats sets of eight ramping weight first workout, second workout deadlifts sets of 5, legs growing
enough time from quiting to starting[years] to become detrained?
different methods,reps,sets,weights ,exercises
only thing in common was hard work and good eating
as far as legs getting bigger same results
While I share some of your angst, I think there is a silver lining. Since a huge majority of lifters utilize these lifts, it creates somewhat of a universal benchmark which can serve as a tool gauge to progress, weaknesses, and strengths in comparison to other lifters, even if varying degrees of technical proficiency make it a less than accurate assessment. I don’t mean utilizing a comparison for pissing contest purposes per say, but as a means of figuring out areas where an individual’s training may be working or lacking.
[/quote]
I actually view this as a significant negative in all honesty, and the primary reason these lifts ARE so popular.
do not know how to edit post
re. my last post on this thread i have done 20 rep squats and more but did them more for mental conditioning ,not for trying to build size or strenght so dont know? if it would work for either, for me
While I share some of your angst, I think there is a silver lining. Since a huge majority of lifters utilize these lifts, it creates somewhat of a universal benchmark which can serve as a tool gauge to progress, weaknesses, and strengths in comparison to other lifters, even if varying degrees of technical proficiency make it a less than accurate assessment. I don’t mean utilizing a comparison for pissing contest purposes per say, but as a means of figuring out areas where an individual’s training may be working or lacking.
[/quote]
I actually view this as a significant negative in all honesty, and the primary reason these lifts ARE so popular.
[/quote]
Hm. I agree that the dogma around the lifts can certainly create a confined (and injury-proned) atmosphere, but would you mind elaborating a bit more?
Hm. I agree that the dogma around the lifts can certainly create a confined (and injury-proned) atmosphere, but would you mind elaborating a bit more?
[/quote]
I touched a little bit on this on my blog in the post “Your gym is making you weak”, but one such issue is that, unless trainees are lifting in exactly the same circumstances, comparing numbers with each other is pointless. Small changes in equipment, time of day lifts are accomplished, order that they’re accomplished in, and a million other variables can affect amount of weight lifted.
Then, you get into this whole idea that there should be some sort of ratio between lifts, and then people freak out that they’re not meeting the ratio and interpret it as a sign of something, rather than just trying to get strong. Jim Wendler talked about how stupid it would be for someone to worry about the fact that they bench 900lbs and squat 900lbs, instead of just embracing the fact that they are a freak.
And THEN you run into the issue of internet “powerlifters” who don’t actually powerlift, but because they perform “the big 3” they feel entitled to grant themselves this title. They end up obsessing over getting a bigger total, under the premise that it’ll somehow help them reach their goals, and they end up running peaking programs rather than actually trying to get bigger and stronger.
I feel like, if people want to compare with others, the time and place to do that is in a competition. Training should be about getting better.
The power lifts are used in competition because you use lots of muscles to move big weights. They are good tests. Like a sport.
Everybody who plays a sport knows you get better through practice, and drilling skills. You break the competition apart, and focus on it piece by piece. After awhile, strengths and weaknesses become apparent. So you pay special attention to your weaknesses. As you get closer to competition, you make practice more like the event. Then you take the skills you developed with specific, special training, into the event.
You don’t step on the field before you practice for awhile.
I think the OP should cool it on the squats (competition) for awhile. Hammer on weaknesses like the hamstrings and quads/vmo’s for awhile and hips for awhile. Leg curls, leg extensions, step ups, RDLs and back raises(practice skills that make up the competition). Maybe even calf raises. Multiple sets of 8-12 reps. Strengthen the muscles that support the knees( weakness).
Then, after a couple months of progress, try squatting again and see off it feels any better.
Hm. I agree that the dogma around the lifts can certainly create a confined (and injury-proned) atmosphere, but would you mind elaborating a bit more?
[/quote]
I touched a little bit on this on my blog in the post “Your gym is making you weak”, but one such issue is that, unless trainees are lifting in exactly the same circumstances, comparing numbers with each other is pointless. Small changes in equipment, time of day lifts are accomplished, order that they’re accomplished in, and a million other variables can affect amount of weight lifted.
Then, you get into this whole idea that there should be some sort of ratio between lifts, and then people freak out that they’re not meeting the ratio and interpret it as a sign of something, rather than just trying to get strong. Jim Wendler talked about how stupid it would be for someone to worry about the fact that they bench 900lbs and squat 900lbs, instead of just embracing the fact that they are a freak.
And THEN you run into the issue of internet “powerlifters” who don’t actually powerlift, but because they perform “the big 3” they feel entitled to grant themselves this title. They end up obsessing over getting a bigger total, under the premise that it’ll somehow help them reach their goals, and they end up running peaking programs rather than actually trying to get bigger and stronger.
I feel like, if people want to compare with others, the time and place to do that is in a competition. Training should be about getting better.[/quote]
Nice write-up & solid points. The benefit I can still see is because these movements are so prevalent, there is a vast amount of collective experience. If you have an issue odds are someone else has had the same problem and overcame it, and often times issues that are observed during the execution of these lifts are symptoms underlying issues and correcting them will often have carryover to other aspects of training. (not saying that because I don’t think you know, haha)
Nice write-up & solid points. The benefit I can still see is because these movements are so prevalent, there is a vast amount of collective experience. If you have an issue odds are someone else has had the same problem and overcame it, and often times issues that are observed during the execution of these lifts are symptoms underlying issues and correcting them will often have carryover to other aspects of training. (not saying that because I don’t think you know, haha) [/quote]
I actually find the prevalence of information/opinion also a negative in all honesty. There is minimal quality control now that every yahoo is performing these three movements, and a lot of times some real terrible advice gets offered and then repeated until the end of time. I think about how Rippetoe’s squat form became so popular that so many people assume it’s the ONLY way to squat, not taking into consideration form variance due to lever length/proportion, or someone squatting high bar, or different goals, etc.
You’re going to have to bear in mind that most of my philosophy on lifting can be summed up by “Look at what 98% of the population is doing, and then don’t do that” due to the fact that the majority of people fail to meet their goals. It will be difficult for me to ever consider the fact that something is popular to be positive.
Nice write-up & solid points. The benefit I can still see is because these movements are so prevalent, there is a vast amount of collective experience. If you have an issue odds are someone else has had the same problem and overcame it, and often times issues that are observed during the execution of these lifts are symptoms underlying issues and correcting them will often have carryover to other aspects of training. (not saying that because I don’t think you know, haha) [/quote]
I actually find the prevalence of information/opinion also a negative in all honesty. There is minimal quality control now that every yahoo is performing these three movements, and a lot of times some real terrible advice gets offered and then repeated until the end of time. I think about how Rippetoe’s squat form became so popular that so many people assume it’s the ONLY way to squat, not taking into consideration form variance due to lever length/proportion, or someone squatting high bar, or different goals, etc.
You’re going to have to bear in mind that most of my philosophy on lifting can be summed up by “Look at what 98% of the population is doing, and then don’t do that” due to the fact that the majority of people fail to meet their goals. It will be difficult for me to ever consider the fact that something is popular to be positive.
[/quote]
Fair enough, the dilution of good information is certainly a drawback of popularity.
“Sets of 10 reps are as pointless for females as 20s are for males who are trying to get stronger. Any weight a male trainee can do for 20 reps is not heavy, even though it may feel like shit at the end of the set. If force production is strength, a weight that requires such sub-maximal force production that it can be done for 20 reps is not heavy enough to drive a strength adaptation for any significant length of time.”
This is the point I was trying to make, made by someone with more credibility (I think?).
[/quote]
We have different interpretations of that last statement where he said the strength adaptation can’t be sustained for any significant length of time. I believe this applies to a long period of time and not a short period of time.
Dt79 is right in saying that people too often think in terms of extremes and this is probably related to thinking there is a holy grail for training methods. I have been guilty of thinking in extremes too often and that’s why I now make more of an effort to figure out why things work even if it isn’t a common thing to do. I’m not looking for right or wrong, just why.
If someone were to ask me how can they keep the 20 rep squat program as a staple in there program while getting big and strong, I would tell them to run 20 rep sets for as long as they can. Then start over and run 15 rep sets for as long as they can. Then start over and run 10 rep sets for as long as they can. Then start over and run 5 rep sets for as long as they can. Then hit singles each week for as long as they can if they plan to peak. As the volume for heavy training gets dropped, it gets made up by a bit more volume in the assistance or drop sets - this takes some experience but generally as much volume that can be handled without affect the progression of the main work. Each time there is a gradual build-up to allow conditioning/adapation for the new type of stimulus (set/rep scheme) and a bit of time to recover from fatigue accumulation in the previous cycle. The main problem with programming is when people think they should maintain the same type of stimulus (e.g., set/rep scheme) indefinitely. This should also not be taken to the other extreme where you completely change everything all the time and allow no room for adaptation.
One of the reasons why daily undulating periodization is so effective is because the goal is always to get better in some way regardless of the exact set/rep scheme.
Dt79 is right in saying that people too often think in terms of extremes and this is probably related to thinking there is a holy grail for training methods. [/quote]
EXTREMES!!!
