Do Pros Always Train with 8-12 Reps?

Training Bodybuilding
41

Just to make sure you understood OP.

Take some exercise you are fond of… lets say incline bench.

If you go from using 135 for 5 reps, and get to use 300 for 5 reps you will grow.

If you go from using 100 or the bar for 12 or anything, and you accomplish 250lbs for 12 reps or more you will grow.

If you end benching 300 for 12 reps guess what? you will be even bigger.

Like the professor and Cephalic have said, get stronger in whatever rep range you like, and does not have to be the same all the time. Just get stronger… like more 100lbs in every exercise or something and see what happens!

42

WOW!

TWO PAGES and no one even skimmed the simple physiology concept of asynchronous stimulation of random motor units.

The Nervous system stops muscles from going like jelly, which helps prevent damage from random impact (think Darwin), by randomly triggering signals to motor units which has a NET effect of tension over, usually, the muscle belly.

Now couldn’t you presume this is what OP was talking about? Obviously someone with a more excitable nervous system like Franco would fire asynchronus signals more often than someone with a relatively less excitable nervous system like Arnold.

Of course, DONT take the idea to an extreme, but ‘everyday’ unflexed muscle can look harder if someone is stronger, or has more motor units per muscle cell… it’s what we call ‘muscle tone’.

I digress, I hate it when fitness professionals misuse the medical term ‘muscle tone’. “Oh, do this machine, it will give you muscle tone”
… what?

Nade

43

Yep, and eat their veggies.

44

[quote]forevernade wrote:
WOW!

TWO PAGES and no one even skimmed the simple physiology concept of asynchronous stimulation of random motor units.

The Nervous system stops muscles from going like jelly, which helps prevent damage from random impact (think Darwin), by randomly triggering signals to motor units which has a NET effect of tension over, usually, the muscle belly.

Now couldn’t you presume this is what OP was talking about? Obviously someone with a more excitable nervous system like Franco would fire asynchronus signals more often than someone with a relatively less excitable nervous system like Arnold.

Of course, DONT take the idea to an extreme, but ‘everyday’ unflexed muscle can look harder if someone is stronger, or has more motor units per muscle cell… it’s what we call ‘muscle tone’.

I digress, I hate it when fitness professionals misuse the medical term ‘muscle tone’. “Oh, do this machine, it will give you muscle tone”
… what?

Nade[/quote]

Lol

wut

45

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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!!!
[/quote]

Ha ha ha!
Prof sums it up!
OP just get on with your own training, you already said you’ve made some gains, so maybe you’ve found the “right” number of reps for you? Who cares what anybody else does- pros or not?

46

i dont even think it is true that rep ranges for growth will be consistent with your own body. for growth in my legs, 20 rep squats or sets of 15 really got my legs to grow. but for bench, i would just get fatigued if i tried to go 12 reps and i got a lot more growth doing low reps for like 8-10 sets. (total volume was similar, but what i experienced was that i had to attain these reps in different ways.

i say just tinker around with it.

47

@ forevernade , actually I did mention prolonged CNS activity after intense motor unit hammering, I remeber CT actually mentioned it several years ago in one of his articles.

@ Cephalic , quite interesting, I thought only Yates and couple of others used “intensity”, R-P, heavy low rep work.
Routines mentioned in interviews with various pros on Getbig.com in late 90s made impression hi-reps were a common thing among proffesionals (Nasser, Sarcev (Poliquin trained him with relatively low reps after 10-12 years), Flex, etc. )

But it the end why even bother about what they do. It is only important what works for you.

48

[quote]forevernade wrote:
WOW!

TWO PAGES and no one even skimmed the simple physiology concept of asynchronous stimulation of random motor units.

The Nervous system stops muscles from going like jelly, which helps prevent damage from random impact (think Darwin), by randomly triggering signals to motor units which has a NET effect of tension over, usually, the muscle belly.

Now couldn’t you presume this is what OP was talking about? Obviously someone with a more excitable nervous system like Franco would fire asynchronus signals more often than someone with a relatively less excitable nervous system like Arnold.

Of course, DONT take the idea to an extreme, but ‘everyday’ unflexed muscle can look harder if someone is stronger, or has more motor units per muscle cell… it’s what we call ‘muscle tone’.

I digress, I hate it when fitness professionals misuse the medical term ‘muscle tone’. “Oh, do this machine, it will give you muscle tone”
… what?

Nade[/quote]

You know, simply throwing words out there doesn’t equal understanding.

[quote]Obviously someone with a more excitable nervous system like Franco would fire asynchronus signals more often than someone with a relatively less excitable nervous system like Arnold.
[/quote]

How the hell would you or anyone else know how “excitable” Franco’s nervous system was without intense scientific research?

You are throwing theory around like it is fact and coming up with very strange conclusions based off of it. That isn’t science.

49

[quote]testosteroniak wrote:
@ forevernade , actually I did mention prolonged CNS activity after intense motor unit hammering, I remeber CT actually mentioned it several years ago in one of his articles.

@ Cephalic , quite interesting, I thought only Yates and couple of others used “intensity”, R-P, heavy low rep work. [/quote] Low rep work… Levrone was big on it (if you consider 4-6 low reps) and others as well. Intensity techniques like RP are obviously used mostly by the DC crowd of Pro’s/NPC dudes these days (Dave Henry, Jason Wojo etc)… I’m not overly familiar with Phil Hernon’s program, but I thought it was intensity-based as well…? [quote]

Routines mentioned in interviews with various pros on Getbig.com [/quote] Getbig? Getout! lol [quote] in late 90s made impression hi-reps were a common thing among proffesionals (Nasser [/quote] Nasser trained way heavier and switched to higher reps later. Ronnie is actually one guy who uses high reps a lot… Just not necessarily on the big exercises, or not always. Still, what I really mean is: He still didn’t use high-volume… They all ramp up to exactly one top-set per exercise… Example:
Bench
13512
2258
3156
4056
495as many as he gets… Just hypothetical numbers, but most end up somewhere around 40512 to 495*6+, depending on the weight-class of the guy and individual strength differences…
Point is, 1 set at working weight per exercise usually. Hence 2-4 exercises per muscle-group… No intensity techniques used (or only an occasional drop-set on cable-curls or whatever), at least in most cases.

Thus volume is fairly low, actually. Just because the one guy prefers 8-12 on a lot of exercises and the other guys likes 6-8 doesn’t really make the one guy a “high-volume” man and the other one “low volume”…

They usually still do the same amount of work-sets (fairly few), but simply use a different rep-range on their top-sets… [quote], Sarcev (Poliquin[/quote] Good that you mentioned him. He also used a ton of actual work sets in a lot of his routines (and absolutely crazy tri-set routines with hardly any rest and then repeat that 3 times as well… That’s not something that allows for major/fast strength gains in most people, from what I’ve seen (and tried myself). [quote] trained him with relatively low reps after 10-12 years), Flex, etc. )

But it the end why even bother about what they do. It is only important what works for you.[/quote]
Oh, the common modern Pro-routine actually works fairly well for most who try it while actually eating more than 2000 calories and know about the tiny little ramping detail.

Most of us also have our small variations/tweeks for that kind of routine…
I stay within a narrow rep range (8-10 or 6-10 or so, for example) and swap out exercises I stall on and come back to them later to improve upon my previous best.

50

[quote]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?[/quote]

Yeah,that really makes sence. Just,functional hypertrophy vs Non-Functional hypertrophy!!!Personally of course i prefer the first one,in a Bodybuilder.Would you like a example,maybe a bit stupid?!I would prefer to look good in the beach from start and not have to swim first to get a blood flow to look bigger.hehe get it?

From Black book of Training by CT!!!
Basically, non-functional hypertrophy refers to gains in muscle size that aren’t associated with an improved capacity to produce force. That could either be due to hypertrophy of the non-contractile elements of the muscle structure (sarcoplasm, collagen, etc.) or an increase in fiber size that’s excessive and leads to internal friction which reduces concentric force potential.

Non-functional hypertrophy is like adding weight to your car without touching the engine. Your car is heavier but you don’t have more power to balance that increase in weight. It might make you look good, but it certainly won’t make you efficient! It?s the classic case of looking like Tarzan but playing like Jane.Athletes should focus on functional hypertrophy. To promote it you must use methods which lead to a high level of muscular tension. We?re talking about heavy-load training and explosive training.

Bodybuilders pretty much have the slow, controlled exercises covered. They use mostly moderate tension/long TUT methods which are good to some extent, but I’ve always believed if you attack an enemy via several fronts you stand a greater chance of winning.Same thing goes with training!
…

Non-functional hypertrophy is an increase in the non-contractile elements of a muscle fiber and it has been shown to occur predominently with bodybuilding-type training (Zatsiorsky, 1996). Non-functional hypertrophy is equivalent to increasing the weight of a car but not the strength of it?s engine (or adding wagons to a train). So ultimately it is understandable why it is not desirable.

For more informations read the book…

51

Ugh…it’s that f-word again…

52

[quote]The Vendetta 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?

Yeah,that really makes sence. Just,functional hypertrophy vs Non-Functional hypertrophy!!!Personally of course i prefer the first one,in a Bodybuilder.Would you like a example,maybe a bit stupid?!I would prefer to look good in the beach from start and not have to swim first to get a blood flow to look bigger.hehe get it?

From Black book of Training by CT!!!
Basically, non-functional hypertrophy refers to gains in muscle size that aren’t associated with an improved capacity to produce force. That could either be due to hypertrophy of the non-contractile elements of the muscle structure (sarcoplasm, collagen, etc.) or an increase in fiber size that’s excessive and leads to internal friction which reduces concentric force potential.

Non-functional hypertrophy is like adding weight to your car without touching the engine. Your car is heavier but you don’t have more power to balance that increase in weight. It might make you look good, but it certainly won’t make you efficient! It?s the classic case of looking like Tarzan but playing like Jane.Athletes should focus on functional hypertrophy. To promote it you must use methods which lead to a high level of muscular tension. We?re talking about heavy-load training and explosive training.

Bodybuilders pretty much have the slow, controlled exercises covered. They use mostly moderate tension/long TUT methods which are good to some extent, but I’ve always believed if you attack an enemy via several fronts you stand a greater chance of winning.Same thing goes with training!
…

Non-functional hypertrophy is an increase in the non-contractile elements of a muscle fiber and it has been shown to occur predominently with bodybuilding-type training (Zatsiorsky, 1996). Non-functional hypertrophy is equivalent to increasing the weight of a car but not the strength of it?s engine (or adding wagons to a train). So ultimately it is understandable why it is not desirable.

For more informations read the book…[/quote]

Who the fuck has “nonfunctional hypertrophy”?

My muscles have function. If they didn’t, I wouldn’t be able to use them.

Most of the biggest guys I know do NOT train “slow and controlled” on most movements. They lift “fast and controlled” unless they are specifically focusing on the contraction and holding it.

I know CT has much respect on this site. I am one of those who like the guy. However, the implication that you can put people unknown to you into boxes that well defined is ludicrous at best.

You can not simply LOOK at Franco and Arnold and jump to some conclusion about fiber type distribution or “functional hypertrophy”. None of those guys back then were just useless mounds of muscle.

53

Professor X,

This is a pretty relevant question but I still apologize for hacking the thread. After reading everything you have said, I still have a question in terms of optimal physique enhancement training over time. Would you say that it is best for a beginner/intermediate to train using a traditional bodypart split in a high (8-12) rep range per-set, or would you say it is better for that trainee to initially focus on building a solid strength base in the core exercises (ie. squat, deadlift, bench press, push press etc) and once that trainee is able to lift heavy weights in those core exercises they should move on to a traditional bodybuilding workout?

I hope that makes sense. Thank you.

54

Not to answer for X, but since when does a “traditional bodybuilding workout” not incorporate core exercises like squats, deadlifts, bench press and push presses?

55

[quote]Stone101 wrote:
Professor X,

This is a pretty relevant question but I still apologize for hacking the thread. After reading everything you have said, I still have a question in terms of optimal physique enhancement training over time. Would you say that it is best for a beginner/intermediate to train using a traditional bodypart split in a high (8-12) rep range per-set, or would you say it is better for that trainee to initially focus on building a solid strength base in the core exercises (ie. squat, deadlift, bench press, push press etc) and once that trainee is able to lift heavy weights in those core exercises they should move on to a traditional bodybuilding workout?

I hope that makes sense. Thank you.[/quote]

Wait…what split routine avoids the “squat, deadlift, bench press”?

I think people should quit looking for some cookie cutter routine or some blanket answer for ALL people. If someone is truly so weak that they NEED some form of training to get them ready for real training (which is all this talk of newbies needing TBT comes down to), then they probably do NOT have the genetics, drive or innate ability to make very large gains in size and strength.

Therefore, when you ask what a beginner or intermediate should be doing to make the most progress…if that person is the type who sees a goal and goes after it…if that person is the type who hears people telling them they can’t do something and they do it anyway…if that person is the type who truly pushes their limits on a regular basis out of some deep need to be better than they were before…then that mutherfucker needs to do what the big guys before them did and quit fucking around.

I am still waiting on these massive super strong people to show up on this site doing full body 2 times a week who will show people like that up.

It hasn’t happened.

It won’t happen.

Do I look like someone who is “nonfunctional” and weak?

These terms seem designed to do nothing but make little guys feel better about being little.

Pick a solid goal and go after it. If you are one of those who don’t even sweat when they train and who thinks their over-analysis takes the place of hard work, pain and sweat, then you are in the wrong activity.

56

Sorry. I mean to focus on strength, then once you have a good strength base, switch to hypertrophy programs so you are lifting heavier weights for more reps?

57

[quote]Stone101 wrote:
Sorry. I mean to focus on strength, then once you have a good strength base, switch to hypertrophy programs so you are lifting heavier weights for more reps?[/quote]

Uh, I train for STRENGTH and SIZE.

Who is telling you that they don’t go together?

58

Thanks a lot man. You really do a lot for everyone here. I would love to see an article from you, especially over a lot of the ones published on this site.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Stone101 wrote:
Professor X,

This is a pretty relevant question but I still apologize for hacking the thread. After reading everything you have said, I still have a question in terms of optimal physique enhancement training over time. Would you say that it is best for a beginner/intermediate to train using a traditional bodypart split in a high (8-12) rep range per-set, or would you say it is better for that trainee to initially focus on building a solid strength base in the core exercises (ie. squat, deadlift, bench press, push press etc) and once that trainee is able to lift heavy weights in those core exercises they should move on to a traditional bodybuilding workout?

I hope that makes sense. Thank you.

Wait…what split routine avoids the “squat, deadlift, bench press”?

I think people should quit looking for some cookie cutter routine or some blanket answer for ALL people. If someone is truly so weak that they NEED some form of training to get them ready for real training (which is all this talk of newbies needing TBT comes down to), then they probably do NOT have the genetics, drive or innate ability to make very large gains in size and strength.

Therefore, when you ask what a beginner or intermediate should be doing to make the most progress…if that person is the type who sees a goal and goes after it…if that person is the type who hears people telling them they can’t do something and they do it anyway…if that person is the type who truly pushes their limits on a regular basis out of some deep need to be better than they were before…then that mutherfucker needs to do what the big guys before them did and quit fucking around.

I am still waiting on these massive super strong people to show up on this site doing full body 2 times a week who will show people like that up.

It hasn’t happened.

It won’t happen.

Do I look like someone who is “nonfunctional” and weak?

These terms seem designed to do nothing but make little guys feel better about being little.

Pick a solid goal and go after it. If you are one of those who don’t even sweat when they train and who thinks their over-analysis takes the place of hard work, pain and sweat, then you are in the wrong activity.

[/quote]

59

Sorry this was posted before I read your reply.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Stone101 wrote:
Sorry. I mean to focus on strength, then once you have a good strength base, switch to hypertrophy programs so you are lifting heavier weights for more reps?

Uh, I train for STRENGTH and SIZE.

Who is telling you that they don’t go together?[/quote]

60

CC in your example for ramping:

13512
2258
3156
4056
495*as many as he gets…

do most people ramp like that with all exercises of a body part or just the first exercise and then in later exercises of the same body part just go for the 1 work set?