Hammer Strength BP Weights

[buzza]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wouldn’t even count 2 reps as having done a set. Are you using that machine to max out? When does maxing out matter in bodybuilding? The goal is to work your chest more efficiently, not compare this shit to powerlifting.[/quote]

I agree that just a working set of 2 (two) reps is PLish but…what about a second main set DC mode of just two reps?
I use a first set of 4/5 reps,rack the bb, rest and squeeze other (maximum) two reps,it seems to work as my chest becomes bigger and I become stronger.
All depends ,IMO, from your own percentage of muscular twitches,with more than 10 reps I have to use a load that is more than 30% lighter than with 6 reps,Modoc suggested that probably this is because of my% of fibers,Poliquin also wrote about the big gap in performances between different % fibers people, otherwise I did pretty well in explosive strenght sports so it makes sense.
low reps,high reps= use whatever works for you.
[/quote]

I use low reps also and I still wouldn’t count 2 reps as a set. At the least, 3-5 reps on the LAST set.

your choice man, I doubt that pushing 8 reps to dead,rest,3/4,rest,just one ot two on LAST set
(as per DC protocol).

All of that talk about fiber percentages only makes sense if you are making far above average progress using that approach. You base those types of assumptions on the progress made.
[/quote]

30lb more on the bar (inclined bench) in less than 3 months,no juice,seems pretty good to me LOL[/quote]

It doesn’t to me unless you now look like a serious weight lifter as a direct result.

This is bodybuilding, not “let’s compare how much weight we lift”. I am a very strong person, but this is one reason these threads that turn into a clusterfuck of powerlifters vs bodybuilders never get anywhere.

That “30lbs gain” is only significant if you are making above average progress.
[/quote]

you didn’t catch ,I was thinking to write on BB forum,not?
is this a powerlifting forum ?
if not, a 30 lb more on the bar with very good form and slow eccentric (4 sec) means good progress ,in plain english my chest is bigger than 3 months ago.
mah,I aways thought that essence of BB was become stronger (with good form) on compound excercises…

PS: I add a recent pic,now my chest is not flat and the size of american made shirt I bought last week is 3XL so I would think that “2 reps protocol” works.

[Professor_X]

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wouldn’t even count 2 reps as having done a set. Are you using that machine to max out? When does maxing out matter in bodybuilding? The goal is to work your chest more efficiently, not compare this shit to powerlifting.[/quote]

I agree that just a working set of 2 (two) reps is PLish but…what about a second main set DC mode of just two reps?
I use a first set of 4/5 reps,rack the bb, rest and squeeze other (maximum) two reps,it seems to work as my chest becomes bigger and I become stronger.
All depends ,IMO, from your own percentage of muscular twitches,with more than 10 reps I have to use a load that is more than 30% lighter than with 6 reps,Modoc suggested that probably this is because of my% of fibers,Poliquin also wrote about the big gap in performances between different % fibers people, otherwise I did pretty well in explosive strenght sports so it makes sense.
low reps,high reps= use whatever works for you.
[/quote]

I use low reps also and I still wouldn’t count 2 reps as a set. At the least, 3-5 reps on the LAST set.

your choice man, I doubt that pushing 8 reps to dead,rest,3/4,rest,just one ot two on LAST set
(as per DC protocol).

All of that talk about fiber percentages only makes sense if you are making far above average progress using that approach. You base those types of assumptions on the progress made.
[/quote]

30lb more on the bar (inclined bench) in less than 3 months,no juice,seems pretty good to me LOL[/quote]

It doesn’t to me unless you now look like a serious weight lifter as a direct result.

This is bodybuilding, not “let’s compare how much weight we lift”. I am a very strong person, but this is one reason these threads that turn into a clusterfuck of powerlifters vs bodybuilders never get anywhere.

That “30lbs gain” is only significant if you are making above average progress.
[/quote]

you didn’t catch ,I was thinking to write on BB forum,not?
is this a powerlifting forum ?
if not, a 30 lb more on the bar with very good form and slow eccentric (4 sec) means good progress ,in plain english my chest is bigger than 3 months ago.
mah,I aways thought that essence of BB was become stronger (with good form) on compound excercises…

PS: I add a recent pic,now my chest is not flat and the size of american made shirt I bought last week is 3XL so I would think that “2 reps protocol” works.

[/quote]

Getting stronger is a large part of bodybuilding, but simply stating a small strength increase doesn’t mean much. Many HITters are quick to act as if their strength goes up at every session…but you ask them to post pics and they barely look trained at all because they are only in the gym 2 times a week or less.

That is why the “increase” alone doesn’t mean much unless it all adds up to BIG MUSCLES.

[Professor_X]

Also, I saw the pic. Keep it up and get that chest bigger…but at your stage, I would reconsider going with strictly low reps like you claimed above.

[buzza]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wouldn’t even count 2 reps as having done a set. Are you using that machine to max out? When does maxing out matter in bodybuilding? The goal is to work your chest more efficiently, not compare this shit to powerlifting.[/quote]

I agree that just a working set of 2 (two) reps is PLish but…what about a second main set DC mode of just two reps?
I use a first set of 4/5 reps,rack the bb, rest and squeeze other (maximum) two reps,it seems to work as my chest becomes bigger and I become stronger.
All depends ,IMO, from your own percentage of muscular twitches,with more than 10 reps I have to use a load that is more than 30% lighter than with 6 reps,Modoc suggested that probably this is because of my% of fibers,Poliquin also wrote about the big gap in performances between different % fibers people, otherwise I did pretty well in explosive strenght sports so it makes sense.
low reps,high reps= use whatever works for you.
[/quote]

I use low reps also and I still wouldn’t count 2 reps as a set. At the least, 3-5 reps on the LAST set.

your choice man, I doubt that pushing 8 reps to dead,rest,3/4,rest,just one ot two on LAST set
(as per DC protocol).

All of that talk about fiber percentages only makes sense if you are making far above average progress using that approach. You base those types of assumptions on the progress made.
[/quote]

30lb more on the bar (inclined bench) in less than 3 months,no juice,seems pretty good to me LOL[/quote]

It doesn’t to me unless you now look like a serious weight lifter as a direct result.

This is bodybuilding, not “let’s compare how much weight we lift”. I am a very strong person, but this is one reason these threads that turn into a clusterfuck of powerlifters vs bodybuilders never get anywhere.

That “30lbs gain” is only significant if you are making above average progress.
[/quote]

you didn’t catch ,I was thinking to write on BB forum,not?
is this a powerlifting forum ?
if not, a 30 lb more on the bar with very good form and slow eccentric (4 sec) means good progress ,in plain english my chest is bigger than 3 months ago.
mah,I aways thought that essence of BB was become stronger (with good form) on compound excercises…

PS: I add a recent pic,now my chest is not flat and the size of american made shirt I bought last week is 3XL so I would think that “2 reps protocol” works.

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/9138/img00529.jpg

[/quote]

Getting stronger is a large part of bodybuilding, but simply stating a small strength increase doesn’t mean much. Many HITters are quick to act as if their strength goes up at every session…but you ask them to post pics and they barely look trained at all because they are only in the gym 2 times a week or less.

That is why the “increase” alone doesn’t mean much unless it all adds up to BIG MUSCLES.
[/quote]

oh, I look skinny&small in that pic and I train just one time per week LOL, Prof was you that called me “small sized shirt” guy or not?
I apologize, my new shirt is S not 3XL ,bye bye.

[Professor_X]

[quote]buzza wrote:

oh, I look skinny&small in that pic and I train just one time per week LOL, Prof was you that called me “small sized shirt” guy or not?
I apologize, my new shirt is S not 3XL ,bye bye.[/quote]

What does this response even mean?

[eraserhead]

I don’t even post here anymore… but i’m drunk and bored so let’s give it a go. I don’t have much experience with HS bench, but I used the high-end technogym equipment for a while which is a copy i guess. I could lift maybe 100 lbs more on this machine than i could bench, but only when I used the “right” technique. That is, I positioned myself in a way that gave me a huge boost in leverage, almost like a dip or decline press where I mostly used my lats and triceps.

There were some pro bodybuilders in my gym who used the same weights as me, and although they were much bigger than me, you could tell they were giving it all on each rep. I think this is because they performed each rep with a focus on contraction and hitting the chest rather than moving as much weight as possible. When I did the reps like I would on the bench, i could maybe lift only 20lbs more. So what I’m saying is, Professor X, maybe you would have a larger differential if you performed the HS presses in a different way.

Btw i think your physique looks quite a bit improved in your new avatar photo. When I saw your picture before I thought your shoulders and traps were overpowering you arms somewhat, but they seem to be in more balance now. Do you think your arms have gotten bigger, or is it just a result of dieting?

[Professor_X]

I agree with what you wrote about technique…which is the point I was making from the beginning about not turning this into some powerlifting debate.

If you are using that machine to target THE CHEST and not to simply get the weight in the air like a powerlifter, there isn’t that much of a difference in the weight between the two. That is why I commented on that 2 rep press that didn’t even seem to be focusing on the chest as the prime mover.

It may also be why there is a huge difference in appearance for many of these people.

When I train chest, my goal is to make my chest the muscle that is doing most of the work. It is NOT to simply see how much weight can get thrown in the air.

You LOOK like how you train.

This is not a powerlifting discussion.

About the arms though, no, they did go up a little because my shirts are tighter. Triceps get worked more regularly now so that may be the main reason. I didn’t have that dip machine for a while and my elbows are fucked as far as any overhead movement.

[sam_sneed1]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If you are using that machine to target THE CHEST and not to simply get the weight in the air like a powerlifter, there isn’t that much of a difference in the weight between the two. That is why I commented on that 2 rep press that didn’t even seem to be focusing on the chest as the prime mover.

[/quote]

What makes you think I’m not focusing on my chest as a primary mover? It’s not like I’m bouncing the weight off the floor with my ass up in the air struggling to get the weight up. Usually I wouldn’t even lock out on every rep but then there’d be some guys saying “it doesn’t count” partial ROM. I think if I took a video of my 335x6 set it wouldn’t look much different from the video in your hub except, I kicked out the plates on the floor to get a little more ROM at the bottom and I use a lot less weight. I can tell you that I feel this machine in my chest a lot more than the barbell version.

If anything, I’m stronger at this because I use my chest as a primary mover. CC had a look at my triceps pictures and pretty much said they were pathetic and that’s probably why my BB bench isn’t as high as it should be.

[Professor_X]

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If you are using that machine to target THE CHEST and not to simply get the weight in the air like a powerlifter, there isn’t that much of a difference in the weight between the two. That is why I commented on that 2 rep press that didn’t even seem to be focusing on the chest as the prime mover.

[/quote]

What makes you think I’m not focusing on my chest as a primary mover? It’s not like I’m bouncing the weight off the floor with my ass up in the air struggling to get the weight up. Usually I wouldn’t even lock out on every rep but then there’d be some guys saying “it doesn’t count” partial ROM. I think if I took a video of my 335x6 set it wouldn’t look much different from the video in your hub except, I kicked out the plates on the floor to get a little more ROM at the bottom and I use a lot less weight. I can tell you that I feel this machine in my chest a lot more than the barbell version.

If anything, I’m stronger at this because I use my chest as a primary mover. CC had a look at my triceps pictures and pretty much said they were pathetic and that’s probably why my BB bench isn’t as high as it should be.[/quote]

What makes me think that? Because you only got 2 reps with that weight and couldn’t get another one. That might be fine if that was your last set after pounding the shit out of it with 3 or more sets previous, but you didn’t. So, no, I don’t for one second believe your chest was the primary focus in an attempt like that.

[DJS]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If you are using that machine to target THE CHEST and not to simply get the weight in the air like a powerlifter, there isn’t that much of a difference in the weight between the two. That is why I commented on that 2 rep press that didn’t even seem to be focusing on the chest as the prime mover.

[/quote]

What makes you think I’m not focusing on my chest as a primary mover? It’s not like I’m bouncing the weight off the floor with my ass up in the air struggling to get the weight up. Usually I wouldn’t even lock out on every rep but then there’d be some guys saying “it doesn’t count” partial ROM. I think if I took a video of my 335x6 set it wouldn’t look much different from the video in your hub except, I kicked out the plates on the floor to get a little more ROM at the bottom and I use a lot less weight. I can tell you that I feel this machine in my chest a lot more than the barbell version.

If anything, I’m stronger at this because I use my chest as a primary mover. CC had a look at my triceps pictures and pretty much said they were pathetic and that’s probably why my BB bench isn’t as high as it should be.[/quote]

What makes me think that? Because you only got 2 reps with that weight and couldn’t get another one. That might be fine if that was your last set after pounding the shit out of it with 3 or more sets previous, but you didn’t. So, no, I don’t for one second believe your chest was the primary focus in an attempt like that.[/quote]

lolz. You hate it when anyone says hammer strength is easier. Just get over it. He took a video and you are complaining because its only 2 reps. What matters is he CAN’T barbell press that weight for 2 reps but he CAN hammer strength that weight for 2 reps after his chest workout. Not sure why you take that personally. You can’t quantify if someone has a mind muscle connection or not. You can measure if someone can lift a weight. They either can or can’t. Arguing if they are using their chest as a prime mover or not is getting way off the subject.

[Professor_X]

[quote]DJS wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If you are using that machine to target THE CHEST and not to simply get the weight in the air like a powerlifter, there isn’t that much of a difference in the weight between the two. That is why I commented on that 2 rep press that didn’t even seem to be focusing on the chest as the prime mover.

[/quote]

What makes you think I’m not focusing on my chest as a primary mover? It’s not like I’m bouncing the weight off the floor with my ass up in the air struggling to get the weight up. Usually I wouldn’t even lock out on every rep but then there’d be some guys saying “it doesn’t count” partial ROM. I think if I took a video of my 335x6 set it wouldn’t look much different from the video in your hub except, I kicked out the plates on the floor to get a little more ROM at the bottom and I use a lot less weight. I can tell you that I feel this machine in my chest a lot more than the barbell version.

If anything, I’m stronger at this because I use my chest as a primary mover. CC had a look at my triceps pictures and pretty much said they were pathetic and that’s probably why my BB bench isn’t as high as it should be.[/quote]

What makes me think that? Because you only got 2 reps with that weight and couldn’t get another one. That might be fine if that was your last set after pounding the shit out of it with 3 or more sets previous, but you didn’t. So, no, I don’t for one second believe your chest was the primary focus in an attempt like that.[/quote]

lolz. You hate it when anyone says hammer strength is easier. Just get over it. He took a video and you are complaining because its only 2 reps. What matters is he CAN’T barbell press that weight for 2 reps but he CAN hammer strength that weight for 2 reps after his chest workout. Not sure why you take that personally. You can’t quantify if someone has a mind muscle connection or not. You can measure if someone can lift a weight. They either can or can’t. Arguing if they are using their chest as a prime mover or not is getting way off the subject. [/quote]

I must not be making myself clear. You can very much tell a muscle and mind connection…by LOOKING AT THE PROGRESS MADE. If some guy is doing bench press and his chest sucks but his triceps are huge, you can come to some pretty significant conclusions about how they train,…;.and anyone not aware of this should probably avoid giving advice.

The point is not about whether an HS machine is “easier”. The point is and always has been about what causes that specific muscle to grow better…barbells or other alternatives. Most bodybuilders are relying less and less on the barbell bench for overall chest development. That has NOTHING to do about which is easier.

If you can only do two reps of an exercise, don’t walk around believing you were in deep concentration and focusing on that specific muscle group. You weren’t. You were simply trying to get the weight in the air whether the triceps took over, the shoulders, or the pecs.

Do you think Mad Titan trains his chest like that two rep hs press? Want to bet why you can tell the guys who feel that muscle more when training just like everything else?

It isn’t a fucking secret. All you have to do is look at how someone is progressing.

[sam_sneed1]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If you are using that machine to target THE CHEST and not to simply get the weight in the air like a powerlifter, there isn’t that much of a difference in the weight between the two. That is why I commented on that 2 rep press that didn’t even seem to be focusing on the chest as the prime mover.

[/quote]

What makes you think I’m not focusing on my chest as a primary mover? It’s not like I’m bouncing the weight off the floor with my ass up in the air struggling to get the weight up. Usually I wouldn’t even lock out on every rep but then there’d be some guys saying “it doesn’t count” partial ROM. I think if I took a video of my 335x6 set it wouldn’t look much different from the video in your hub except, I kicked out the plates on the floor to get a little more ROM at the bottom and I use a lot less weight. I can tell you that I feel this machine in my chest a lot more than the barbell version.

If anything, I’m stronger at this because I use my chest as a primary mover. CC had a look at my triceps pictures and pretty much said they were pathetic and that’s probably why my BB bench isn’t as high as it should be.[/quote]

What makes me think that? Because you only got 2 reps with that weight and couldn’t get another one. That might be fine if that was your last set after pounding the shit out of it with 3 or more sets previous, but you didn’t. So, no, I don’t for one second believe your chest was the primary focus in an attempt like that.[/quote]

I know you read the rest of my post. I posted my entire workout before that video. I did hammer my chest with bench presses before including a last set till failure. And I did 335x6 on the HS which was too failure. It’ll be a very long time before I get 335x6 on bench.

The OP asked :
"For those of you who use the Hammer Strength bench press, how do your weights compare to what you can do with a barbell? "

I gave video proof that it’s a 70-90 lbs difference for me. Now you’re discounting that because I only video’d the set where I got 2 reps? You don’t think the 335x6 ever happened?

[system]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

oh, I look skinny&small in that pic and I train just one time per week LOL, Prof was you that called me “small sized shirt” guy or not?
I apologize, my new shirt is S not 3XL ,bye bye.[/quote]

What does this response even mean?[/quote]

I wouldn’t bother X, I’m sure this guy has been here for at least a year posting about how strong and muscular he is yet I don’t think he’s been able to take a single adequate photo of himself in that time.

[Professor_X]

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If you are using that machine to target THE CHEST and not to simply get the weight in the air like a powerlifter, there isn’t that much of a difference in the weight between the two. That is why I commented on that 2 rep press that didn’t even seem to be focusing on the chest as the prime mover.

[/quote]

What makes you think I’m not focusing on my chest as a primary mover? It’s not like I’m bouncing the weight off the floor with my ass up in the air struggling to get the weight up. Usually I wouldn’t even lock out on every rep but then there’d be some guys saying “it doesn’t count” partial ROM. I think if I took a video of my 335x6 set it wouldn’t look much different from the video in your hub except, I kicked out the plates on the floor to get a little more ROM at the bottom and I use a lot less weight. I can tell you that I feel this machine in my chest a lot more than the barbell version.

If anything, I’m stronger at this because I use my chest as a primary mover. CC had a look at my triceps pictures and pretty much said they were pathetic and that’s probably why my BB bench isn’t as high as it should be.[/quote]

What makes me think that? Because you only got 2 reps with that weight and couldn’t get another one. That might be fine if that was your last set after pounding the shit out of it with 3 or more sets previous, but you didn’t. So, no, I don’t for one second believe your chest was the primary focus in an attempt like that.[/quote]

I know you read the rest of my post. I posted my entire workout before that video. I did hammer my chest with bench presses before including a last set till failure. And I did 335x6 on the HS which was too failure. It’ll be a very long time before I get 335x6 on bench.

The OP asked :
"For those of you who use the Hammer Strength bench press, how do your weights compare to what you can do with a barbell? "

I gave video proof that it’s a 70-90 lbs difference for me. Now you’re discounting that because I only video’d the set where I got 2 reps? You don’t think the 335x6 ever happened?
[/quote]

I am not discounting anything. I said you are likely not targeting your chest directly if you can only get two reps of an exercise and can’t get the third.

[BlueCollarTr8n]

I think it is difficult to compare machine and free-weight work. Each have their place and a lifter has to pay attention and use the stations that produce the desired result.

No lifter that is working a true 2RM or 3RM is in isolation. They better be focused and ALL IN the lift; especially with free-weights; or bad things are going to happen, but that is not isolation.

When a lifter can take the strength gains made during periods of low rep training and use those gains to increase/improve the work done in rep ranges where isolation can be accomplished and higher volume can be tolerated, good things are going to happen.

[Professor_X]

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
I think it is difficult to compare machine and free-weight work. Each have their place and a lifter has to pay attention and use the stations that produce the desired result.

No lifter that is working a true 2RM or 3RM is in isolation. They better be focused and ALL IN the lift; especially with free-weights; or bad things are going to happen, but that is not isolation.

When a lifter can take the strength gains made during periods of low rep training and use those gains to increase/improve the work done in rep ranges where isolation can be accomplished and higher volume can be tolerated, good things are going to happen.
[/quote]

Agree 100%. Once you get to a strength level where truly heavy weight can be done for higher reps with complete focus on isolation, then you are getting somewhere. 2 rep maxes should be left in powerlifting.

[buzza]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

oh, I look skinny&small in that pic and I train just one time per week LOL, Prof was you that called me “small sized shirt” guy or not?
I apologize, my new shirt is S not 3XL ,bye bye.[/quote]

What does this response even mean?[/quote]

just (mediterrean)IRONY,Prof LOL
I mean; if I’m making progress both in strenght(after 3 moths of this protocol=inclined press,30lb more on the barX5reps NOT on my 1RM)than in size (my chest is bigger than in the past)I would think that it works (just compounds,low rep,low eccentrics,2xweek chest).

but ,pls, can you explain why you think that I should use an higher range reps?
If i can become bigger faster with higher reps range I of course do.

Mikael

[buzza]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

oh, I look skinny&small in that pic and I train just one time per week LOL, Prof was you that called me “small sized shirt” guy or not?
I apologize, my new shirt is S not 3XL ,bye bye.[/quote]

What does this response even mean?[/quote]

just (mediterrean)IRONY,Prof LOL
I mean; if I’m making progress both in strenght(after 3 moths of this protocol=inclined press,30lb more on the barX5reps NOT on my 1RM)than in size (my chest is bigger than in the past)I would think that it works (just compounds,low rep,low eccentrics,2xweek chest).
but ,pls, can you explain why you think that I should use an higher range reps?
If i can become bigger faster with higher reps range I of course do.

Mikael

[Professor_X]

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

oh, I look skinny&small in that pic and I train just one time per week LOL, Prof was you that called me “small sized shirt” guy or not?
I apologize, my new shirt is S not 3XL ,bye bye.[/quote]

What does this response even mean?[/quote]

just (mediterrean)IRONY,Prof LOL
I mean; if I’m making progress both in strenght(after 3 moths of this protocol=inclined press,30lb more on the barX5reps NOT on my 1RM)than in size (my chest is bigger than in the past)I would think that it works (just compounds,low rep,low eccentrics,2xweek chest).
but ,pls, can you explain why you think that I should use an higher range reps?
If i can become bigger faster with higher reps range I of course do.

Mikael [/quote]

Your ironic sense of humor sucks.

The reason you don’t want to fall into some habit of mostly low reps is BECAUSE of the need to FEEL a muscle group contracting when you train it. Yes, I use low reps. No, I do not use low reps as a rule and usually only on the last sets of a movement.

For instance, I now train my biceps with lighter weight than in the past (but still heavier than anyone else I see lifting aside from very advanced trainers). I focus much more on holding that peak contraction and even slowing my reps down a little. In my opinion, you can see the difference in the way my arms look.

How is that possible if the weight alone is all that matters?

Because the weight alone is NOT all that matters.

That means get strong, but realize you aren’t even advanced until you are using that heavy weight in a way that allows more focus on the muscle groups and higher reps.

You don’t look like Roelly, Vic, or Heath by doing mostly low rep ranges of 5 or less. There is a reason for that.

[buzza]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:

oh, I look skinny&small in that pic and I train just one time per week LOL, Prof was you that called me “small sized shirt” guy or not?
I apologize, my new shirt is S not 3XL ,bye bye.[/quote]

What does this response even mean?[/quote]

just (mediterrean)IRONY,Prof LOL
I mean; if I’m making progress both in strenght(after 3 moths of this protocol=inclined press,30lb more on the barX5reps NOT on my 1RM)than in size (my chest is bigger than in the past)I would think that it works (just compounds,low rep,low eccentrics,2xweek chest).
but ,pls, can you explain why you think that I should use an higher range reps?
If i can become bigger faster with higher reps range I of course do.

Mikael [/quote]

Your ironic sense of humor sucks.

***you welcome!

The reason you don’t want to fall into some habit of mostly low reps is BECAUSE of the need to FEEL a muscle group contracting when you train it. Yes, I use low reps. No, I do not use low reps as a rule and usually only on the last sets of a movement.

For instance, I now train my biceps with lighter weight than in the past (but still heavier than anyone else I see lifting aside from very advanced trainers). I focus much more on holding that peak contraction and even slowing my reps down a little. In my opinion, you can see the difference in the way my arms look.

How is that possible if the weight alone is all that matters?

Because the weight alone is NOT all that matters.

That means get strong, but realize you aren’t even advanced until you are using that heavy weight in a way that allows more focus on the muscle groups and higher reps.

You don’t look like Roelly, Vic, or Heath by doing mostly low rep ranges of 5 or less. There is a reason for that.[/quote]

I catch you,thanx,I will mix up low&high reps, not just higher reps in the second all out set of the session but will do one entire session with higher reps range and second with first set low reps,second 10 reps and RP,figers crossed.

Mikael