For most people power lifters included doing 90% and above too often will destroy your joints. This may not be true of all people.
For more on that a good discussion is taking place at maraudereats log in The 35 and Over section. The title is something about a big guy in a little coat or some crazy shit like that. You might check it out.
[quote]G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Maybe i’m making up a question that has no answer, maybe its a stupid question. Maybe i’m just not asking it right…[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Professor X wrote:
G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Ok, in one of arnie’s books he explained how Franco Columbo could squat much more than him. Franco had big legs which didn’t change when he flexed.
Arnie’s legs would bulge out and look much bigger when flexed.
Franco then traded powerlifting for bodybuilding and won 2 olympias. Powerlifting gave him a great base of size, do modern bodybuilders powerlift in their early days to get that good base?
You are making my head hurt. Franco’s muscles did look different when flexed just like everyone else. You aren’t making much sense. Who do you know of who flexes but the muscle doesn’t change at all?
I knew i wasn’t making much sense but i was hoping that someone would know what i was trying to say!
Well i was always under the impression that there was a big difference in powerlifters training and bodybuilders training. And thus giving different results.
No, there isn’t a big difference. They all lift heavy and eat more to gain more strength and grow. The biggest difference is powerlifters are training to do a max weight for a single rep in competition (mostly). Bodybuilders couldn’t give a flying squirrel shit about a one rep max because lifting a weight one time doesn’t equal great muscle growth.[/quote]
Ok, good answer, thank you!
Personally i dont know shit about powerlifting, dont know any powerlifters! I must have took something up wrong that i read, or read someones bullshit…
Thats why articles about rep ranges always confused me.
[quote]G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Hi guys,
I like to think i have a pretty decent knowledge about training. However there has always been one thing that i can’t get straight in my head. There is so much contradiction out there on the subject of reps.
To my knowledge the best range to aim for in bodybuilding is 8-12 reps.
This will give you bigger muscles but if you’re training for size and strength you should be lifting heavier, with lower reps. Correct?
So pro bodybuilders, did they have to start out lifting like a powerlifter, building a huge frame and then raise the reps, or can you achieve a body like theirs when you always lift in the 8-12 range?
Currently i’m bulking, i’m doing pyramid sets going from 12 down to 2. I have gotten a lot bigger over the past year lifting like this. So if i was to say i’m going to change my reps and lift in the 8-12 range and -‘fill in my new larger frame’, would that make sense?
At the moment my muscles are big but dont get much bigger when i flex so would lifting 8-12 reps, keep me the same size cold but when i flex my muscles will bulge out?
Will i loose strength by doing this?
Sorry about the long winded post, i cant get the question i want to ask to come out properly!!
Also, is there any good articles that explain this in detail that you could link for me?
Thanks in advance for your views guys.
Joe.[/quote]
generally lower bodyfat, more muscle and muscle blood volume looks bigger when flexed.
Training in higher rep ranges specially on isolation exercises gives the average person more ability to bring blood to the area when flexed. Primarily because you are thinking about the muscle more while in isolation at least you should be. You’ll find a number of bodybuilders say they focus/think about a muscle while working it, and they highly aclaimed phrase “mind muscle connection”, there is something to it. Kiss the guns before and after every shower you’d be amazed at how effective that is at making them flex better.
It’s not a requirement to start off powerlifting to build a huge frame. The 8-12 rep range is a general number to know for building muscle, if all your sets are 2 reps then you probably won’t be building too much, but if it’s just your last set you are fine. Just keep working at it until it does get up to 8 - 12, and make sure that the set before your last is not a huge jump where your not really getting anything out of it.
[quote]G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Thats why articles about rep ranges always confused me.[/quote]
The MAJORITY of these articles take simple concepts and try to make them into a thesis for a PhD. I suppose this helps sell the authors image and gets their name out there.
It does nothing for most, it seems, but things overly complicated.
I usually train for anywhere from 8-12 reps. The number itself is largely arbitrary as I know some pretty big fuckers who often use a rep range closer to 20. You don’t argue with results no matter what a study says.
Your goal is to build big muscles as a bodybuilder. That means fatiguing a muscle as well as lifting heavy enough to come close to (or actually reach) failure. You will not do that with only one rep. You will doubtfully do that with just two reps.
If the basics are there, all else falls into place.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Ok, in one of arnie’s books he explained how Franco Columbo could squat much more than him. Franco had big legs which didn’t change when he flexed.
Arnie’s legs would bulge out and look much bigger when flexed.
Franco then traded powerlifting for bodybuilding and won 2 olympias. Powerlifting gave him a great base of size, do modern bodybuilders powerlift in their early days to get that good base?
You are making my head hurt. Franco’s muscles did look different when flexed just like everyone else. You aren’t making much sense. Who do you know of who flexes but the muscle doesn’t change at all?[/quote]
I cant find my arnie book, i’m certain he said something like that! Its an old bood, the education of a bodybuilder, or something like that…
[quote]G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Professor X wrote:
G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Ok, in one of arnie’s books he explained how Franco Columbo could squat much more than him. Franco had big legs which didn’t change when he flexed.
Arnie’s legs would bulge out and look much bigger when flexed.
Franco then traded powerlifting for bodybuilding and won 2 olympias. Powerlifting gave him a great base of size, do modern bodybuilders powerlift in their early days to get that good base?
You are making my head hurt. Franco’s muscles did look different when flexed just like everyone else. You aren’t making much sense. Who do you know of who flexes but the muscle doesn’t change at all?
I cant find my arnie book, i’m certain he said something like that! Its an old bood, the education of a bodybuilder, or something like that…
[/quote]
Dude, Arnold is great…but the man wasn’t a doctor and damn sure wasn’t always right. Mind you, he is well educated now so I am not taking anything away from him…just realize that he also pushed the myth of ribcage expansion from pullovers and is the main reason people still believe this even right now.
I hope people aren’t reading his books from back then and assuming every single thing he has ever written is 100% fact.
Yeah good points Professor x. Thanks for the input it certainly helps.
You too Airtruth, cheers!
[quote]G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Hi guys,
I like to think i have a pretty decent knowledge about training. However there has always been one thing that i can’t get straight in my head. There is so much contradiction out there on the subject of reps.
To my knowledge the best range to aim for in bodybuilding is 8-12 reps.
This will give you bigger muscles but if you’re training for size and strength you should be lifting heavier, with lower reps. Correct?
So pro bodybuilders, did they have to start out lifting like a powerlifter, building a huge frame and then raise the reps, or can you achieve a body like theirs when you always lift in the 8-12 range?
Currently i’m bulking, i’m doing pyramid sets going from 12 down to 2. I have gotten a lot bigger over the past year lifting like this. So if i was to say i’m going to change my reps and lift in the 8-12 range and -‘fill in my new larger frame’, would that make sense?
At the moment my muscles are big but dont get much bigger when i flex so would lifting 8-12 reps, keep me the same size cold but when i flex my muscles will bulge out?
Will i loose strength by doing this?
Sorry about the long winded post, i cant get the question i want to ask to come out properly!!
Also, is there any good articles that explain this in detail that you could link for me?
Thanks in advance for your views guys.
Joe.[/quote]
Higher number of reps = higher volume = more cortisol and stressors produced = more androgens to fight them needed = androgens applied exogenous. So Pro BB use AAS with great success to recuperate properly and achieve hypertrophy from really big amount of work and muscle trauma. The 8-12 rep range is here to focus on tension, stimulation (remember “Stimulate, don’t anhilate”)…and to serve for various oldschool dogma.
Although there were different beasts with different principles (Yates, Mentzer …)
Really high volume won’t work for a non-chemically enhanced average Joe (hint “Pump down the volume”) so different approach is needed for hypertrophy (here comes 3x3, 10x3, 5x5 and so on)
Low rep range doesn’t create the extraordinary shape of muscle. It only serves for different stimuli. Howeever neural zone work can make prolonged tension in muscles.
[quote]testosteroniak wrote:
G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Hi guys,
I like to think i have a pretty decent knowledge about training. However there has always been one thing that i can’t get straight in my head. There is so much contradiction out there on the subject of reps.
To my knowledge the best range to aim for in bodybuilding is 8-12 reps.
This will give you bigger muscles but if you’re training for size and strength you should be lifting heavier, with lower reps. Correct?
So pro bodybuilders, did they have to start out lifting like a powerlifter, building a huge frame and then raise the reps, or can you achieve a body like theirs when you always lift in the 8-12 range?
Currently i’m bulking, i’m doing pyramid sets going from 12 down to 2. I have gotten a lot bigger over the past year lifting like this. So if i was to say i’m going to change my reps and lift in the 8-12 range and -‘fill in my new larger frame’, would that make sense?
At the moment my muscles are big but dont get much bigger when i flex so would lifting 8-12 reps, keep me the same size cold but when i flex my muscles will bulge out?
Will i loose strength by doing this?
Sorry about the long winded post, i cant get the question i want to ask to come out properly!!
Also, is there any good articles that explain this in detail that you could link for me?
Thanks in advance for your views guys.
Joe.
Higher number of reps = higher volume = more cortisol and stressors produced = more androgens to fight them needed = androgens applied exogenous. So Pro BB use AAS with great success to recuperate properly and achieve hypertrophy from really big amount of work and muscle trauma. The 8-12 rep range is here to focus on tension, stimulation (remember “Stimulate, don’t anhilate”)…and to serve for various oldschool dogma.
Although there were different beasts with different principles (Yates, Mentzer …)
Really high volume won’t work for a non-chemically enhanced average Joe (hint “Pump down the volume”) so different approach is needed for hypertrophy (here comes 3x3, 10x3, 5x5 and so on)
Low rep range doesn’t create the extraordinary shape of muscle. It only serves for different stimuli. Howeever neural zone work can make prolonged tension in muscles.
[/quote]
You people and your “Pro’s use super-high volume” stuff… Where are you getting that from? Seriously?
They mostly ramp up to… 1 set at working weight per exercise… Wow, that’s 2-4 sets at working weight per bodypart. Oh my god, the volume!
Honestly, where does this bs myth come from? The last time Pro’s used some shit like 8*8 straight setted was during Gironda’s time, and those were just his guys, not everyone else.
Also: You can gain strength, naturally, in the 8-12 rep range perfectly well…
[quote]trav123456 wrote:
look up hypertrophy vs. hyperplasia[/quote]
There isn’t even definitive evidence that hyperplasia has been recreated in humans, most of it is anecdotal evidence. The training performed on birds to induce hyperplasia, if they would be recreated in humans, would be extreme and probably unethical. This is intense stretching, it is thought that one would have to perform high intensity AND high volume training along with extreme stretching…
Probably injure yourself before you would ever repeat this kind of training enough times to actually induce hyperplasia in skeletal muscle…
Oh yeah… Levrone used the 4-6 range on his top-sets a lot. Even when curling.
Ronnie uses 12-15 surprisingly often… But may go lower in reps/heavier on some of the big movements like the bench, squat and dead and even DB overhead press.
McGrath seems to love 6-8, but will go higher on some movements… (most would find 4-6 reps to failure on skullcrushers to be rather painful on the elbows).
Pro’s use whatever rep range they want/whichever fits the exercise.
Doesn’t matter.
Get stronger in whatever rep range you do. That’s the important part here.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
trav123456 wrote:
look up hypertrophy vs. hyperplasia
There isn’t even definitive evidence that hyperplasia has been recreated in humans, most of it is anecdotal evidence. The training performed on birds to induce hyperplasia, if they would be recreated in humans, would be extreme and probably unethical. This is intense stretching, it is thought that one would have to perform high intensity AND high volume training along with extreme stretching…
Probably injure yourself before you would ever repeat this kind of training enough times to actually induce hyperplasia in skeletal muscle…[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Doesn’t matter.
Get stronger in whatever rep range you do. That’s the important part here.
[/quote]
Wait…could you repeat that? Because it sounded like building muscle isn’t some exact science where you do “exact number of reps” and then gain “exact weight in muscle”.
What do I do if things aren’t so EXACT???
What…do you expect me to learn through trial and error!!!
Thinking back it was my first gym instructor in my college gym who gave me my first progran and told me that 12 reps was for definition and 8 reps and lower reps was for size and strength.
I have based everything i’ve learned since then on everything i learned from him 5 years ago…
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
testosteroniak wrote:
G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Hi guys,
I like to think i have a pretty decent knowledge about training. However there has always been one thing that i can’t get straight in my head. There is so much contradiction out there on the subject of reps.
To my knowledge the best range to aim for in bodybuilding is 8-12 reps.
This will give you bigger muscles but if you’re training for size and strength you should be lifting heavier, with lower reps. Correct?
So pro bodybuilders, did they have to start out lifting like a powerlifter, building a huge frame and then raise the reps, or can you achieve a body like theirs when you always lift in the 8-12 range?
Currently i’m bulking, i’m doing pyramid sets going from 12 down to 2. I have gotten a lot bigger over the past year lifting like this. So if i was to say i’m going to change my reps and lift in the 8-12 range and -‘fill in my new larger frame’, would that make sense?
At the moment my muscles are big but dont get much bigger when i flex so would lifting 8-12 reps, keep me the same size cold but when i flex my muscles will bulge out?
Will i loose strength by doing this?
Sorry about the long winded post, i cant get the question i want to ask to come out properly!!
Also, is there any good articles that explain this in detail that you could link for me?
Thanks in advance for your views guys.
Joe.
Higher number of reps = higher volume = more cortisol and stressors produced = more androgens to fight them needed = androgens applied exogenous. So Pro BB use AAS with great success to recuperate properly and achieve hypertrophy from really big amount of work and muscle trauma. The 8-12 rep range is here to focus on tension, stimulation (remember “Stimulate, don’t anhilate”)…and to serve for various oldschool dogma.
Although there were different beasts with different principles (Yates, Mentzer …)
Really high volume won’t work for a non-chemically enhanced average Joe (hint “Pump down the volume”) so different approach is needed for hypertrophy (here comes 3x3, 10x3, 5x5 and so on)
Low rep range doesn’t create the extraordinary shape of muscle. It only serves for different stimuli. Howeever neural zone work can make prolonged tension in muscles.
You people and your “Pro’s use super-high volume” stuff… Where are you getting that from? Seriously?
They mostly ramp up to… 1 set at working weight per exercise… Wow, that’s 2-4 sets at working weight per bodypart. Oh my god, the volume!
Honestly, where does this bs myth come from? The last time Pro’s used some shit like 8*8 straight setted was during Gironda’s time, and those were just his guys, not everyone else.
[/quote]
8*8 is like 8 sets for bench, no. Nothing like that but more movements, more sets, more reps, more tempo in controlled fashion.
Actually back in the days when started lifting I read Flex, MD, and other that typo (like most of us did) and if I correctly remember 10-12 reps coupled with --isolate this and that-- was like mantra.
With doing various exercises, like 4-6 and for 3-4 sets, total volume exceeds normal recovery capabilities. Add training for 3-5 day in a row and there it goes.
I think its not myth, lots of pros and serious amateur BBs use it and yes you can simply gain naturally no chem. enhancment in 8-12 , I didn’s say you can’t, but whatever does the job.
[quote]G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Thinking back it was my first gym instructor in my college gym who gave me my first progran and told me that 12 reps was for definition and 8 reps and lower reps was for size and strength.
I have based everything i’ve learned since then on everything i learned from him 5 years ago…[/quote]
Cool…the next homecoming game, let’s go kick his ass!
[quote]testosteroniak wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
testosteroniak wrote:
G.I. Joe Galway wrote:
Hi guys,
I like to think i have a pretty decent knowledge about training. However there has always been one thing that i can’t get straight in my head. There is so much contradiction out there on the subject of reps.
To my knowledge the best range to aim for in bodybuilding is 8-12 reps.
This will give you bigger muscles but if you’re training for size and strength you should be lifting heavier, with lower reps. Correct?
So pro bodybuilders, did they have to start out lifting like a powerlifter, building a huge frame and then raise the reps, or can you achieve a body like theirs when you always lift in the 8-12 range?
Currently i’m bulking, i’m doing pyramid sets going from 12 down to 2. I have gotten a lot bigger over the past year lifting like this. So if i was to say i’m going to change my reps and lift in the 8-12 range and -‘fill in my new larger frame’, would that make sense?
At the moment my muscles are big but dont get much bigger when i flex so would lifting 8-12 reps, keep me the same size cold but when i flex my muscles will bulge out?
Will i loose strength by doing this?
Sorry about the long winded post, i cant get the question i want to ask to come out properly!!
Also, is there any good articles that explain this in detail that you could link for me?
Thanks in advance for your views guys.
Joe.
Higher number of reps = higher volume = more cortisol and stressors produced = more androgens to fight them needed = androgens applied exogenous. So Pro BB use AAS with great success to recuperate properly and achieve hypertrophy from really big amount of work and muscle trauma. The 8-12 rep range is here to focus on tension, stimulation (remember “Stimulate, don’t anhilate”)…and to serve for various oldschool dogma.
Although there were different beasts with different principles (Yates, Mentzer …)
Really high volume won’t work for a non-chemically enhanced average Joe (hint “Pump down the volume”) so different approach is needed for hypertrophy (here comes 3x3, 10x3, 5x5 and so on)
Low rep range doesn’t create the extraordinary shape of muscle. It only serves for different stimuli. Howeever neural zone work can make prolonged tension in muscles.
You people and your “Pro’s use super-high volume” stuff… Where are you getting that from? Seriously?
They mostly ramp up to… 1 set at working weight per exercise… Wow, that’s 2-4 sets at working weight per bodypart. Oh my god, the volume!
Honestly, where does this bs myth come from? The last time Pro’s used some shit like 8*8 straight setted was during Gironda’s time, and those were just his guys, not everyone else.
8*8 is like 8 sets for bench, no. Nothing like that but more movements, more sets, more reps, more tempo in controlled fashion.
Actually back in the days when started lifting I read Flex, MD, and other that typo (like most of us did) and if I correctly remember 10-12 reps coupled with --isolate this and that-- was like mantra.
With doing various exercises, like 4-6 and for 3-4 sets, total volume exceeds normal recovery capabilities. Add training for 3-5 day in a row and there it goes.
I think its not myth, lots of pros and serious amateur BBs use it and yes you can simply gain naturally no chem. enhancment in 8-12 , I didn’s say you can’t, but whatever does the job, whatever rep range suits you.
[/quote]
[quote]testosteroniak wrote:
I think its not myth, lots of pros and serious amateur BBs use it
[/quote]
I’ve seen Rühl and several other German Pro’s train in person.
None of them use actual high-volume training (i.e. 3-5 straight sets for every exercise etc).
Any vid of just about any Pro out there shows them ramping. Even Arnold and co, and people used to say he trained with such crazy volume… Well, ok, he used a 2-way or 3-way over 6 days instead of nowadays’ 4-6-way over 4-6 days…
But where people always went wrong was believing that just because the BB mags printed Arnold’s (or any other pro’s) routines out as “48-12 this, 78-10 that”, the Pro’s were actually doing like 12-22 sets at working weight per bodypart. Load of nonsense. (and most of these articles are ghost-written bs anyway, but you get what I mean)
There really isn’t any crazy amount of volume involved in any of their routines, I don’t get it.
A lot of CT’s programs are significantly higher in actual volume than any Pro routine in use these days, for example.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
testosteroniak wrote:
I think its not myth, lots of pros and serious amateur BBs use it
I’ve seen Rühl and several other German Pro’s train in person.
None of them use actual high-volume training (i.e. 3-5 straight sets for every exercise etc).
Any vid of just about any Pro out there shows them ramping. Even Arnold and co, and people used to say he trained with such crazy volume… Well, ok, he used a 2-way or 3-way over 6 days instead of nowadays’ 4-6-way over 4-6 days…
But where people always went wrong was believing that just because the BB mags printed Arnold’s (or any other pro’s) routines out as “48-12 this, 78-10 that”, the Pro’s were actually doing like 12-22 sets at working weight per bodypart. Load of nonsense. (and most of these articles are ghost-written bs anyway, but you get what I mean)
There really isn’t any crazy amount of volume involved in any of their routines, I don’t get it.
A lot of CT’s programs are significantly higher in actual volume than any Pro routine in use these days, for example.
[/quote]
x2 on the ghostwritten point