Do Pros Always Train with 8-12 Reps?

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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

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

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.

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.[/quote]

I know jargon isnt understanding. Thats why I dont like people when they misuse the word muscle-tone.

I dont KNOW that his nervous system is more excitable without being allowed to do scientific tests, but I think that it is obvious that you can draw conclusions from the evidence provided… I am not saying he has an excitable NS, and therefore has incredible tone - I AM saying that he has incredible tone, therefore he must have an excitable NS. How is that a strange conclusion?

62

[quote]forevernade wrote:

I dont KNOW that his nervous system is more excitable without being allowed to do scientific tests, but I think that it is obvious that you can draw conclusions from the evidence provided… I am not saying he has an excitable NS, and therefore has incredible tone - I AM saying that he has incredible tone, therefore he must have an excitable NS. How is that a strange conclusion?[/quote]

You can’t jump to any conclusion about someone else’s “neuro-excitability” simply because you see them in contest shape in relation to SOMEONE ELSE. That doesn’t even make sense and shows you lack a firm grasp on the subject matter.

Science does not have everything figured out, especially when it comes to people who have the desire of building the most muscle possible.

You are pushing some weak idea about there being a relation between how a muscle LOOKS and how easily excited their nervous system is in relation to other people?

The way these guys look is based on the degree of muscle mass, their own genetic muscle shape and the fact that they are lean enough to see great detail in their muscles. Anyone acting like they can see this and come to a final conclusion about how that person’s entire body responds to any stress at all…and then go even further to act like you know they respond “better” than another massive bodybuilder based on LOOKS alone needs to avoid giving any further diagnosis.

Any athlete who is well trained is going to have a nervous system that has adapted to the stress they put it through. That is about the only leap to a distant conclusion you can make without sounding like some pseudo-scientific jargon spewing article reading lay-person.

63

Ok. I just thought I was being sensible by trying to further the thread introducing an idea based on what I learned in physiology, but I will drop the pursuit of that. I agree you cant draw conclusions just from someones outward appearance.

64

Try some things - don’t just read about shit, go try stuff out for yourself. There’s no better way to answer the questions you have…

In 20 years of training, I’ve tried a lot of different stuff - training in many different rep ranges should be a part of your overall plan, but only you know what you’re after here. Do you want to look like a bodybuilder? Then train like a bodybuilder. If you’re a football player (which I believe you said you are) then train to be the best football player you can be…

In the end, it always comes back to the basics. I have the utmost respect for a guy like CT, but he makes his living analyzing the shit out of this stuff. If you read all his articles and think you need to be doing this, then that’s not going to serve you well in the long run.

Consistency is key here - just pick something and stick with it. You might do 5x5 in a lower rep/heavier weight scheme for awhile, then switch to a more traditional 3 sets in the 8 - 12 rep range for a time. Just make sure you stick with one or the other long enough to see results.

If this is going to be a lifelong endeavor for you, and you plan to train consistently, there’s a lot of room for variation as you go along - don’t get stuck in one mind-set - always be open to learning something new, but do not allow yourself to be paralyzed by the sheer overabundance of information out there.

You’ll never go wrong with consistency and dedication to the basics…

65

[quote]pumped340 wrote:
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?[/quote]

Most Pro’s ramp up on everything for at least 3 total sets.

Now, how many sets they need in total depends on how heavy they go… Obviously a 495 lb bench is a bit too dangerous to only warm-up to with 2 sets.
On big lifts, they also usually ramp up adding a plate per side per set.
So a 495 lb lift usually gets 5 total sets, last being the top-set.

405 lb = 4 sets if it’s the first lift for that bodypart that day… 3 if it’s a subsequent one.

Example:
Ronnie does flat and incline bench:

-Flat (5 sets going from 1 PPs to 5 PPs)
-Incline (3 sets going from 2 PPs… hey, he’s already warmed up, right? to 4 pps)

This isn’t a universal rule or anything, but it should give you some idea.

Someone who’s very weak still, benching only 225 for reps will obviously not just do 2 total sets there… But 3 or 4.

You’re essentially doing howevermany sets you think you’ll need to get ready for your top-weight.

And yeah, skullcrushers may need more warming-up (elbows…) than machine curls etc…

As for how many sets are done for small exercises like mach. curls or laterals… That’s also totally individual… 2-4… 3 is often what people end up doing, but there’s little point in doing 4 lateral sets if all you’re lifting on your top-set is 20-30 lbs per side.

(This is all for the regular, wide-spread BB approach in use today… Not exactly what a powerlifter or Max-OT guy etc would do)

Yates did it somewhat differently, cutting warm-ups on subsequent exercises really short (1 set or none at all as warm-ups or so… Ask bricknyce, he knows yates’ stuff better than I do).

66

Thanks for such an in depth response. It seems like with an exercise like laterals, flies, etc… someone might choose to do 2-3 straight sets as a finisher or just to add a little volume but I definitely get what you mean

Can’t wait to give training like that a shot once I can workout again

67

Wowowowowow, and here people have been busy roasting po’ ol Waterbury since they mistakenly assumed that HE STARTED the whole “non functional” vs “functional” debate lol.

Well everyone has skeletons in his/her closet, and everyone needs to constantly reinvent himself/herself to make himself/herself more marketable to some intended population while at the same time staying on “talking terms” with the more experienced. So i;m not pointing fingers at anyone…

but monsieur vendetta, thanks for re-ushering us back to the dark age of T-Nation.