[quote]ds1973 wrote:
I think this would have been better recieved if the hypothetical twins were perhaps hot females.
Twin A: squats down on my penis 14 sets of 5 reps.
Twin B: squats down on my penis 7 sets of 5 times.
Both use the same eccentric/concentric tempo and the perfect rep quick turnaround at the bottom.
In two years, which twin has the tighter pussy?[/quote]
The Best Post Award goes to ds1973.
/“thread”
[quote]dankid wrote:
Would there likely be any difference in size between the two guys, or would they be very similar as they both had the same strength?[/quote]
Anybody training for maximum strength as the focus would only do enough volume and max effort to allow quick recovery and more frequency. So as such, I don’t see the point in all this talk about “hybrid hypertrophy” (increasing the overall volume in a strength routine to make it more specific for hypertrophy) - the two extremes of each goal take more specific training than just “increasing the sets”.
[quote]dankid wrote:
Does Volume Really Make a Difference?
[/quote]
I think there’s more to it than just increasing the sets. For bodybuilding, you need to do more max effort in the 70-90% range, whereas with powerlifting, you need more sets overall (small jumps in weight between sets) to better prepare the system. So although you’ve done more sets (volume), it’s not going to do much for hypertrophy until it reaches the higher fatigue levels…in which case it kind of contradicts the maximum strength focus (of stimulating as much strength while keeping fatigue as low as possible).
Simple as:
-if you’re a bodybuilder, do one or two max sets, mainly rep ranges in the 6-12 range, and less frequency
-if you’re a powerlifter, do mainly rep ranges in the 2-5 range, and a little more frequency
I know there are exceptions (e.g. 20 rep squats), and both “camps” can swap focus, but why try to go against what has been proven to work? If you are almost just as interested in maximum strength as you are size, then do a more strength oriented approach for a while…don’t overcomplicate things and try to do both at the same time.
Yeah, we’re retarded for using methods that have worked for DECADES, rather than sit here thinking of fictional scenarios that do absolutely nothing for our progress!
You want to get strong as hell - look at what top powerlifters do.
You want to get big as hell - do what top bodybuilders do (as I outlined in my “Bodybuilding Bible” thread).
And as Tribunal said, this isn’t perfect journey in which you simply add 2.5 to 20 pounds to a lift every goddamn session. You might actually encounter situations along the road in which NOT performing the lift will lead to long term gains in the lift!
And two people who squat can look quite different! Ed Coan regularly outlifts people who weigh 100 pounds or more than him! two people can bench 405 and look drastically different. One can have symmetrical development in his lats, shoulders, chest, and tris; and the other could look like an asymmetrical freakazoid!
Telling us we’re retarded and don’t know what we’re doing - are you fucking kidding me?
Yeah, the road from 10 x 400 pounds to 10 x 600 pounds is gonna be a linear path. Sure.
I advise all T-tards to take the genius practice of thinking of the weirdest shit on earth instead of getting off their fucking ass and making some progress.
Some kid also made a thread in which he showed his curiosity about the differences in recovery rates of individual muscle groups. Awesome thing to think about! So if he does find out these individual recovery rates, what does he plan on doing? Creating some insane schedule that accommodates each one of them?
"Let’s see - my traps recover in 3 days, my quads recover in 10 days… Let me put all this on a calendar and I’ll adjust my workouts like so.
“Heaven forbid I just take the simply advice that everyone else adheres to - train each muscle once or twice a week!”
[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
[quote]dankid wrote:
LOL the T-Nation crowd is fucking retarded. I know this isn’t how it would happen in real life and that you aren’t going to proress in a linear fashion this way.
I was trying to present a HYPOTHETICAL situation that was somewhat controlled to question whether or not volume really makes much of a difference.
It looks like none of us here really know. At least a few of us have some opinions. But the rest, pretty much retarded.[/quote]
Yup. Everyone else is crazy. Your post made total sense.
[/quote]
LOL
So I was wondering this today. I know it’s typically accepted that more volume will equal more but im starting to question this.
We have twin A and twin B. Lets say both twins eat the same amount of food and they shit 5lbs per day.
Twin A purposely shits once a day while twin B takes 3 shits per day.
After a few years they are both shitting 9lbs at the end of the day except one of them obviously shits it all at once while the other takes 3 trips.
Now since twin B takes 3 shits per day and twin A takes one per day would the length/shape of the shits be the same at the end of the day?
I dunno what do you guys think?
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]dankid wrote:
Would there likely be any difference in size between the two guys, or would they be very similar as they both had the same strength?[/quote]
Anybody training for maximum strength as the focus would only do enough volume and max effort to allow quick recovery and more frequency. So as such, I don’t see the point in all this talk about “hybrid hypertrophy” (increasing the overall volume in a strength routine to make it more specific for hypertrophy) - the two extremes of each goal take more specific training than just “increasing the sets”.
[quote]dankid wrote:
Does Volume Really Make a Difference?
[/quote]
I think there’s more to it than just increasing the sets. For bodybuilding, you need to do more max effort in the 70-90% range, whereas with powerlifting, you need more sets overall (small jumps in weight between sets) to better prepare the system. So although you’ve done more sets (volume), it’s not going to do much for hypertrophy until it reaches the higher fatigue levels…in which case it kind of contradicts the maximum strength focus (of stimulating as much strength while keeping fatigue as low as possible).
Simple as:
-if you’re a bodybuilder, do one or two max sets, mainly rep ranges in the 6-12 range, and less frequency
-if you’re a powerlifter, do mainly rep ranges in the 2-5 range, and a little more frequency
I know there are exceptions (e.g. 20 rep squats), and both “camps” can swap focus, but why try to go against what has been proven to work? If you are almost just as interested in maximum strength as you are size, then do a more strength oriented approach for a while…don’t overcomplicate things and try to do both at the same time.[/quote]
I see what you are saying, and I do train for STRENGHT and I train the way some of the strongest guys train. But I dont quite agree with the generalizations you’ve made as far as training for strength and training for size (Pl’er vs. bb’er) At least for me, I have found that less than or equal to 5 reps is better for BOTH. Really, right now anything that im doing over 6 reps on is something that im just doing as an accessory lift and thus it is not of primary importance to me.
So essentially I see very little difference in training for size and training for strength. Im still questioning the difference that volume would make (as nobody here seems to have any opinions on this). The only real difference I can see is that bodybuilders will want to rest less than powerlifters or strength athletes. If you were training for max strength, then you want to pretty much fully recover, which may mean 3-5+ minute rest breaks, and if you are training for size, then you dont want to fully recover and will probably be resting 30-90 seconds or so. This is really the onl difference I see.
I think as far as volume and number of sets goes, each individual will find the ideal volume that allows them to increase the load on the bar on a consistant and somewhat frequent basis.
So for me, I may be able to do 7x2 and progress somewhat consistantly. And 14x2 might be “optimal” for someone else, but drastically slow down my progress. It would be more VOLUME which in theory would lead to more size, but it would also slow the progress of weight on the bar so it wouldn’t be ideal.
Im thinking this is how it works, but do not know this for sure. It would certainly explain how some people are able to gain on something like old school HIT, while others are able to make progress on 5x5.
Sorry for the “creepy” post. I forgot T-Nation deusche bags aren’t able to discuss antyhing. They are too ‘busy’ being hardcore lifting weights and playing reach around with the other hardcore bros.
My conclusion though I guess is that i doesn’t matter how you train for size. Whatever leads to consistant increases in weight on the bar will lead to consistant increases in mass.
Take your malignant narcissism and run on back to Lyle’s site, Dankid, where you will be free to engage in intellectual masturbation safe from the criticisms of all of those bros and retards who have achieved twice the results with less than a tenth of the type of insanity and confusion your threads regularly involve.
[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
I think this would have been better recieved if the hypothetical twins were perhaps hot females.
Twin A: squats down on my penis 14 sets of 5 reps.
Twin B: squats down on my penis 7 sets of 5 times.
Both use the same eccentric/concentric tempo and the perfect rep quick turnaround at the bottom.
In two years, which twin has the tighter pussy?[/quote]
The Best Post Award goes to ds1973.
/“thread”[/quote]
Why thank you Mr.Purple.
Give me a break, BENCH 255? LULZ…EVEN PAT ROBERTSON CAN’T LEG-PRESS THAT MUCH.
Stop trolling.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Oh come on guys, Dankid knows all. He benches 255![/quote]
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Take your malignant narcissism and run on back to Lyle’s site, Dankid, where you will be free to engage in intellectual masturbation safe from the criticisms of all of those bros and retards who have achieved twice the results with less than a tenth of the type of insanity and confusion your threads regularly involve.[/quote]
Boo hoo!
Im ignoring all comments unless someone actually wants to discuss the original topic
Oh no, next he’ll start holding his breath!
[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
Oh no, next he’ll start holding his breath![/quote]
Purple, you’ve just lost your invitation to dankid’s birthday party. And don’t even think about trying to swap pokemon with him. You’ve burned that bridge.
.
Think carefully about this last couple of sentences.
[quote]dankid wrote:
My conclusion though I guess is that i doesn’t matter how you train for size. Whatever leads to consistant increases in weight on the bar will lead to consistant increases in mass. [/quote]
YOU have a skewed perspective, we’re trying to correct that. You have a handle on some of the “right” thing to say to sound like a bodybuilder, but you have no idea how it all comes together.
EDIT: I’m tired of this.
The difference between bodybuilding and powerlifting is your training perspective.
Unfortunately that will make a world of difference after you’re past the stage of rank beginner.
[quote]dankid wrote:
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]dankid wrote:
Would there likely be any difference in size between the two guys, or would they be very similar as they both had the same strength?[/quote]
Anybody training for maximum strength as the focus would only do enough volume and max effort to allow quick recovery and more frequency. So as such, I don’t see the point in all this talk about “hybrid hypertrophy” (increasing the overall volume in a strength routine to make it more specific for hypertrophy) - the two extremes of each goal take more specific training than just “increasing the sets”.
[quote]dankid wrote:
Does Volume Really Make a Difference?
[/quote]
I think there’s more to it than just increasing the sets. For bodybuilding, you need to do more max effort in the 70-90% range, whereas with powerlifting, you need more sets overall (small jumps in weight between sets) to better prepare the system. So although you’ve done more sets (volume), it’s not going to do much for hypertrophy until it reaches the higher fatigue levels…in which case it kind of contradicts the maximum strength focus (of stimulating as much strength while keeping fatigue as low as possible).
Simple as:
-if you’re a bodybuilder, do one or two max sets, mainly rep ranges in the 6-12 range, and less frequency
-if you’re a powerlifter, do mainly rep ranges in the 2-5 range, and a little more frequency
I know there are exceptions (e.g. 20 rep squats), and both “camps” can swap focus, but why try to go against what has been proven to work? If you are almost just as interested in maximum strength as you are size, then do a more strength oriented approach for a while…don’t overcomplicate things and try to do both at the same time.[/quote]
I see what you are saying, and I do train for STRENGHT and I train the way some of the strongest guys train. But I dont quite agree with the generalizations you’ve made as far as training for strength and training for size (Pl’er vs. bb’er) At least for me, I have found that less than or equal to 5 reps is better for BOTH. Really, right now anything that im doing over 6 reps on is something that im just doing as an accessory lift and thus it is not of primary importance to me.
So essentially I see very little difference in training for size and training for strength. Im still questioning the difference that volume would make (as nobody here seems to have any opinions on this). The only real difference I can see is that bodybuilders will want to rest less than powerlifters or strength athletes. If you were training for max strength, then you want to pretty much fully recover, which may mean 3-5+ minute rest breaks, and if you are training for size, then you dont want to fully recover and will probably be resting 30-90 seconds or so. This is really the onl difference I see.
I think as far as volume and number of sets goes, each individual will find the ideal volume that allows them to increase the load on the bar on a consistant and somewhat frequent basis.
So for me, I may be able to do 7x2 and progress somewhat consistantly. And 14x2 might be “optimal” for someone else, but drastically slow down my progress. It would be more VOLUME which in theory would lead to more size, but it would also slow the progress of weight on the bar so it wouldn’t be ideal.
Im thinking this is how it works, but do not know this for sure. It would certainly explain how some people are able to gain on something like old school HIT, while others are able to make progress on 5x5.
Sorry for the “creepy” post. I forgot T-Nation deusche bags aren’t able to discuss antyhing. They are too ‘busy’ being hardcore lifting weights and playing reach around with the other hardcore bros.
My conclusion though I guess is that i doesn’t matter how you train for size. Whatever leads to consistant increases in weight on the bar will lead to consistant increases in mass. [/quote]
This place is becoming a SHITTY FORUM. Please stop posting bullshit which is making this a SHITTY FORUM. If you guys don’t want a SHITTY FORUM you’ll make training threads that make sense, and aren’t SHITTY. Stop making this a SHITTY FORUM, unless you like posting in a SHITTY FORUM.
Trav: This forum is now swarming with loonies/kooks/crazies that need to be put back in their cages!
At this point, I’m surprised they function in normal, everyday life. How the fuck can someone function in the facets of life–school, friends, family, work, pussy–if they’re constantly thinking all damn day? It’s unbelievable! Who has the emotional and mental energy to think of dumb shit all day - shit like stories of identical twins getting big and developing a killer squat.
I’m actually scared at this point - scared of the human race’s future or my safety in society.
We actually had a guy inquiring yesterday if mashing cauiflower and broccoli into his mashed 'taters will destroy the nutritive value of them.
I’m scared - very, VERY scared.
[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
Your drivel about all things weight training belongs in the comment section of youtube videos.
[/quote]
Now that’s just plain mean.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Trav: This forum is now swarming with loonies/kooks/crazies that need to be put back in their cages!
At this point, I’m surprised they function in normal, everyday life. How the fuck can someone function in the facets of life–school, friends, family, work, pussy–if they’re constantly thinking all damn day? It’s unbelievable! Who has the emotional and mental energy to think of dumb shit all day - shit like stories of identical twins getting big and developing a killer squat.
I’m actually scared at this point - scared of the human race’s future or my safety in society.
We actually had a guy inquiring yesterday if mashing cauiflower and broccoli into his mashed 'taters will destroy the nutritive value of them.
I’m scared - very, VERY scared. [/quote]
You should see this other training forum I frequent… People ask stuff like “can jacking off be detrimental to my training?”, and “can I get fat from chewing food and spitting it out?” (hello eating disorder). Personally I don’t think you’re scared enough, time to start building a bunker.
Dankid: “My conclusion though I guess is that i doesn’t matter how you train for size. Whatever leads to consistant increases in weight on the bar will lead to consistant increases in mass.”
UH, NO!
You can make increases in strength without an increase in size. You can even lift bigger in a lift by getting quicker. Granted, you can’t do that unduly; at some point you’ll have to get bigger to see increases in strength.
And it’s this new simple-minded thinking–“Just keep trowin’ weight on da bar and triple ya poundages and 10 yrs ya gon make da oith (earth) quake”–that has a bunch of misguided, confused newjacks thinking they increase their poundages at will - that they can add 2.5 to 20 pounds to a lift in a rep range FOREVER and at will!
I’ve seen guys write in PMs to me and on the threads, “I’m gonna add 10 pounds every workout” - AS IF this is all so simple and that in order to keep getting stronger and bigger, adjustments in programs might or probably need to be made.