Confused about How to Get Bigger Legs

Training
61

One last thing to state about hypertrophy. People make the mistake in thinking that sacroplasmic hypertrophy is a bad thing because it’s “all show and no go”. The problem is in looking at the situation at one specific point in time.

I don’t know all the exact science behind it so this is just my opinion. What if a muscle grows bigger because of sacroplasmic hypertrophy and this bigger cross sectional area promotes an environment for more myofibrils to grow? You need both. You need a large cross sectional area and you need more myofibrils to fill it. You train to get big and also to train those new muscles to get stronger. I don’t think a newly grown muscle fiber is instantly strong. I think every single fiber has to grow stronger over time, just like how everything in nature grows over time.

I can compare strength to growing plants (or muscle fibers). Plant more seeds and provide them the resources necessary to grow. I want a huge forest full of big strong trees but those big trees have to start from somewhere. I’ll just keep buying more land and planting more seeds.

It’s not a coincidence why the strongest people are super jacked.

62

[quote]Philly wrote:
That plus a fracture in my lower back disk have always made the squat too painful for me. [/quote]
Um other then one person…some of you guys are glossing over this important bit of info by the OP.

63

[quote]lift206 wrote:
One last thing to state about hypertrophy. People make the mistake in thinking that sacroplasmic hypertrophy is a bad thing because it’s “all show and no go”. The problem is in looking at the situation at one specific point in time.

I don’t know all the exact science behind it so this is just my opinion. What if a muscle grows bigger because of sacroplasmic hypertrophy and this bigger cross sectional area promotes an environment for more myofibrils to grow? You need both. You need a large cross sectional area and you need more myofibrils to fill it. You train to get big and also to train those new muscles to get stronger. I don’t think a newly grown muscle fiber is instantly strong. I think every single fiber has to grow stronger over time, just like how everything in nature grows over time.

I can compare strength to growing plants (or muscle fibers). Plant more seeds and provide them the resources necessary to grow. I want a huge forest full of big strong trees but those big trees have to start from somewhere. I’ll just keep buying more land and planting more seeds.

It’s not a coincidence why the strongest people are super jacked.[/quote]
“Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” has never been proven to be able to occur separately, nor in disproportionate amounts, regardless of rep range.

I remember reading about some steroid gurus trying to induce hyperplasia in muscles with synthol combined with pump training. I doubt it worked. Even the occurrence of localized growth with IGF-1 site injections is still a theory.

64

[quote]dt79 wrote:
“Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” has never been proven to be able to occur separately, nor in disproportionate amounts, regardless of rep range.

I remember reading about some steroid gurus trying to induce hyperplasia in muscles with synthol combined with pump training. I doubt it worked. Even the occurrence of localized growth with IGF-1 site injections is still a theory.[/quote]

Fair enough. In that case someone that is not very strong for their size may not have the neural adaptations from lifting very heavy and probably lacks technical proficiency. It’s reasonable to assume those two areas having a huge impact on strength.

65

[quote]bulldog9899 wrote:

[quote]Philly wrote:
That plus a fracture in my lower back disk have always made the squat too painful for me. [/quote]
Um other then one person…some of you guys are glossing over this important bit of info by the OP.[/quote]

OP- Were you cleared to lift heavy again by your doc?

66

[quote]dt79 wrote:
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.

Conversely, you can do this:

135 x 12, 225 x 5, 275 x 3, 315 x max, joker sets

Does this look familiar?[/quote]

What you’re describing is just a warm-up. A good way to warm-up, the way I warm-up virtually every time now, but not the old “pyramid workout,” which is still out there all over the internet.

Bodybuilding.com is still full of workouts like it, telling you to lift “heavy” but with never more than 90 or 60 seconds rest, to failure, increasing the weight, etc. I even recently saw a Rich Piana video where he actually DISCOURAGES using the pyramid the way you describe it (eg. “saving yourself” for the top work sets), and recommends going all out on every single set (he even says you’re likely to get MORE reps on the top set this way because of just how “mentally pumped” you are or something).

My general point was that just “feeling the burn” is not very good advice for the average skinny guy. Which was my impression of Yogi’s advice – just do sets of 20 and feel the burn in your legs.

I think the skinny guy is better off in almost every case focusing 90+% of his energy on simple progressive overload.

67

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:
2) 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. [/quote]

So let’s take 2 identical twins, both 6’3, weigh 190 lbs, with skinny legs. They can both squat bodyweight for 1 rep.

One guy starts doing sets of 20 right away, and that’s all he does for 10 weeks. Squat for sets of 20, as much as you want him to. He can do 95lbs x 20 so that’s the weight he starts with.

The other guy spends 5 weeks squatting 3x5, 3 times / week. He starts at 135 lbs and adds weight to the bar every session. I say in 5 weeks he can go from 135x5x3 to 225x5x3 at least, probably more depending on factors like diet and genetics. In any case, after the first five weeks, bringing up 1RM up to something like 270 from 190, he transitions to 5 weeks doing sets of 20, the exact same protocol his brother has been doing, except he starts with a higher load due to his increased absolute strength - say 135x20.

At the end of 10 weeks, will the two twins have built an identical amount of muscle and strength?

It’s hypothetical of course, but I say no. I say the second twin will have increased his 20RM more in the first 5 weeks doing sets of 5 than the first twin doing only sets of 20 – while also providing a fine hypertrophy stimulus on its own – and that his second 5-week phase of 20 rep sets will provide a better growth stimulus both because the load is heavier and total volume higher.

68

[quote]craze9 wrote:

What you’re describing is just a warm-up. A good way to warm-up, the way I warm-up virtually every time now, but not the old “pyramid workout,” which is still out there all over the internet.

[/quote]

Dude, seriously, don’t argue with me on this subject lol. Just go to the gym and ask some old farts what pyramiding is. The weight jumps will be less on secondary and isolation exercises. Don’t believe everything you read online.

69

Rich Piana, while being an incredibly charismatic youtube personality and savvy businessman, is not someone to ever take advice from. His nonsense on how to cycle steroids will lead to a whole generation of users permanently damaging their endocrine systems. His arm muscles aren’t real btw. Synthol or implants, not sure.

[quote]My general point was that just “feeling the burn” is not very good advice for the average skinny guy. Which was my impression of Yogi’s advice – just do sets of 20 and feel the burn in your legs.

I think the skinny guy is better off in almost every case focusing 90+% of his energy on simple progressive overload.[/quote]
I didn’t say you were wrong. Neither was Yogi.

70

[quote]dt79 wrote:
Dude, seriously, don’t argue with me on this subject lol. Just go to the gym and ask some old farts what pyramiding is. The weight jumps will be less on secondary and isolation exercises. Don’t believe everything you read online.
[/quote]

I was getting confused there, as I understood pyramids traditionally get smaller the closer they get to the top. I would imagine taking all sets to failure would be more akin to “cubing”.

If that’s not a thing yet, I’m making it one.

71

[quote]craze9 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:
2) 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. [/quote]

So let’s take 2 identical twins, both 6’3, weigh 190 lbs, with skinny legs. They can both squat bodyweight for 1 rep.

One guy starts doing sets of 20 right away, and that’s all he does for 10 weeks. Squat for sets of 20, as much as you want him to. He can do 95lbs x 20 so that’s the weight he starts with.

The other guy spends 5 weeks squatting 3x5, 3 times / week. He starts at 135 lbs and adds weight to the bar every session. I say in 5 weeks he can go from 135x5x3 to 225x5x3 at least, probably more depending on factors like diet and genetics. In any case, after the first five weeks, bringing up 1RM up to something like 270 from 190, he transitions to 5 weeks doing sets of 20, the exact same protocol his brother has been doing, except he starts with a higher load due to his increased absolute strength - say 135x20.

At the end of 10 weeks, will the two twins have built an identical amount of muscle and strength?

It’s hypothetical of course, but I say no. I say the second twin will have increased his 20RM more in the first 5 weeks doing sets of 5 than the first twin doing only sets of 20 – while also providing a fine hypertrophy stimulus on its own – and that his second 5-week phase of 20 rep sets will provide a better growth stimulus both because the load is heavier and total volume higher.
[/quote]
You are still assuming that someone doing sets of 20 is going to execute his reps slow and controlled and all the other “training for hypertrophy” rubbish.

I’ll give you a very simple hypothetical answer. BOTH will end up with the same 20RM. ONE will have a higher 1RM.

72

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]TX iron wrote:

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]

Do you have a link for your blog? I Googled it, but I couldn’t find anything.

73

[quote]Murraynt wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]TX iron wrote:

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]

Do you have a link for your blog? I Googled it, but I couldn’t find anything.
[/quote]

The link is in my hub. The title is “Mythical Strength”

Thanks for looking me up!

74

Was this thread supposed to clear up confusion? All I have to say is thank goodness no one has mentioned calves :stuck_out_tongue:

75

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
Dude, seriously, don’t argue with me on this subject lol. Just go to the gym and ask some old farts what pyramiding is. The weight jumps will be less on secondary and isolation exercises. Don’t believe everything you read online.
[/quote]

I was getting confused there, as I understood pyramids traditionally get smaller the closer they get to the top. I would imagine taking all sets to failure would be more akin to “cubing”.

If that’s not a thing yet, I’m making it one.[/quote]
Lol!

I’m still scratching my head thinking about how someone can do a 12 reps to failure, increase the weight by 40lbs and do 10 reps to failure and so on with 90secs rest. He must be on Super Soldier Serum.

76

[quote]craze9 wrote:
So let’s take 2 identical twins, both 6’3, weigh 190 lbs, with skinny legs. They can both squat bodyweight for 1 rep.

One guy starts doing sets of 20 right away, and that’s all he does for 10 weeks. Squat for sets of 20, as much as you want him to. He can do 95lbs x 20 so that’s the weight he starts with.

The other guy spends 5 weeks squatting 3x5, 3 times / week. He starts at 135 lbs and adds weight to the bar every session. I say in 5 weeks he can go from 135x5x3 to 225x5x3 at least, probably more depending on factors like diet and genetics. In any case, after the first five weeks, bringing up 1RM up to something like 270 from 190, he transitions to 5 weeks doing sets of 20, the exact same protocol his brother has been doing, except he starts with a higher load due to his increased absolute strength - say 135x20.

At the end of 10 weeks, will the two twins have built an identical amount of muscle and strength?

It’s hypothetical of course, but I say no. I say the second twin will have increased his 20RM more in the first 5 weeks doing sets of 5 than the first twin doing only sets of 20 – while also providing a fine hypertrophy stimulus on its own – and that his second 5-week phase of 20 rep sets will provide a better growth stimulus both because the load is heavier and total volume higher.
[/quote]

I would guess that by the end, the person who trained 3x5 last would likely have a stronger 5RM (and likely 1RM) because he progressed/peaked for that type of performance. The person who trained the 20 rep squat program likely would have a stronger 20RM after 10 weeks because he last progressed/peaked for that type of performance. I would think that they would end up the same size if they did everything else exactly the same.

If they both were to compete at a 1RM after 10 weeks, at least make it fair and allow them both to train with a more general program first and then a more specific program leading up to the meet. If there is no date for competition, they can do whatever they want.

77

[quote]tsantos wrote:
Was this thread supposed to clear up confusion? All I have to say is thank goodness no one has mentioned calves :stuck_out_tongue: [/quote]

After keeping a eye this thread… pretty sure any confusion the OP had in his plight has just tripled for the poor guy. Unless he just raised his hands up and said to hell with this shit. Any benefit for him went out the window several pages back. FYI… hell calves are mostly genetic anyway :wink:

78

The two key things in my opinion is to lift properly and to progress gradually by adding a bit of weight each time. On the eccentric portion of each lift, don’t let gravity do the work - instead, count to 2 slowly, then explode on the way up, then repeat. You can add pauses at the bottom, but you may have to reduce the weight.

If you want to add size to your legs (and back) fast, I would try the 20 rep breathing squats. Just make sure to pick a weight you can only do 10 times, then do reps 11-20 without unracking and taking deep breaths in between sets. Also, you must increase your caloric intake on this program.

79

I would say just consistency + variety with your training, switch up your rep ranges, exercises, rest periods etc and things will change.

I have personally found with any body part, building it up is a long term game. If your constantly shocking them with different methods of training then they will keep growing :slight_smile: