[quote]
hexx wrote:
As many mentioned here the key is progressive overload-- IE doing something the next workout that the muscles are not used to. This can come in MANY shapes and sizes such as:
Great TUT (emphasize concentric/eccentric)
Better Form
Less Rest
More Reps/Sets (in the same given time)
which will all hopefully finally add up to loading additional weight on the god damned bar.
The key is if a muscle perceives a stimulus as a threat to it’s existence it will grow.
True, but all of the above are much more limited in their ability to build muscle. Also, as you said, they are just ways to assist you in achieving the ultimate goal of adding weight to the bar.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
David1991 wrote:
again the “problem” was only referring to the condition of staying with the same exercise and keeping every other variable the same for a long time.
You would be wrong, unless you were talking about an extremely advanced lifter.[/quote]
i agree with everything else u said, but for this u think u could just keep adding weight to the bar each subsequent workout, with the exact same number of reps for 6 months? i’m sure most would plateau much earlier. the above example that was given was good
overall any form of progression will likely lead to an increase of weight possible on the bar in a given time frame.
[quote]Phoenix Theory wrote:
Firstly I must add that duration of overload is the most important factor in building muscle. Only then does amount of overload factor in.
[/quote]
Bull shit. Not only is it not the most important factor, but it’s not really even necessary at all. Scott Abel is big on biofeedback/intrinsic cues/oxygen dept as a method of measuring when the next set should start. Dante Trudel’s method (DC training) uses deep breaths (10-15) to measure when it’s time to start the next rest/pause set. Those breaths can vary depending on where in the workout one is, how they are feeling that day, their conditioning, etc… Both of these guys have built tons of muscle (both on themselves and others).
Nonsense.
This is the BODYBUILDING section. All discussion in this section is about training for aesthetic purposes. The scenario does not however change.
What? So you are suggesting that you can squat using only your lower back muscles?
We aren’t talking about beginners here who’s form is going to suddenly go to crap overnight. You use as perfect of form as possible. Sometimes that involves some cheating, but that largely depends on how your body responds, the exercise and where in the set you are.
Ever seen a maximal lift (powerlifting)? Often times it’s not technically perfect. Take for instance the deadlift. Oftentimes you’ll get thoracic spinal flexion, it’ll look more like a stiff legged deadlift and in some contexts (like strongman) they many even “hitch” the weight up.
Now, ever see what a powerlifter looks like when they cut down? Think Dave Tate. Or think of how guys like Mariusz, Kevin Knee, Mark Felix and other strongman competitors are built. Is it any coincidence that the strongest guys are also among the biggest?
[quote]
Remember the fundermental principle is not progressive resistence. it is PROGRESSIVE OVERLOAD.
Phoenix Theory[/quote]
Once again, bull shit. If progressive overload was the fundamental principle, then you would never need to lift weights in the first place. You could just do push-ups until the cows came home, or endless bodyweight squats and you’d be huge. You lift weights because the fundamental principle IS progressive resistance.
[quote]David1991 wrote:
i agree with everything else u said, but for this u think u could just keep adding weight to the bar each subsequent workout, with the exact same number of reps for 6 months? i’m sure most would plateau much earlier. the above example that was given was good
[/quote]
Not exact same reps. But same rep range (say 11-15). And not only do I think you could do it, but I have and I know several others who have as well.
Your comment about having to eat a ton of food and gain weight pretty much answered your question, as I said before. If you aren’t doing that, then no you couldn’t continue to increase for 6 months. But then again, your progress would be, let’s just say “less than stellar”, in those six months as well.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
David1991 wrote:
i agree with everything else u said, but for this u think u could just keep adding weight to the bar each subsequent workout, with the exact same number of reps for 6 months? i’m sure most would plateau much earlier. the above example that was given was good
Not exact same reps. But same rep range (say 11-15). And not only do I think you could do it, but I have and I know several others who have as well.
Your comment about having to eat a ton of food and gain weight pretty much answered your question, as I said before. If you aren’t doing that, then no you couldn’t continue to increase for 6 months. But then again, your progress would be, let’s just say “less than stellar”, in those six months as well.[/quote]
oh well as far as in a rep range that big i agree with u. and yea a calorie surplus is of course needed to add muscle as well for the most part
[quote]Scott M wrote:
Progress in weight(or reps) is done in the same exact form otherwise this discussion isn’t worth having. Take an exercise and slap a rep range on it, we will say 10-15 for now. Start at the top and slowly work your way down as you add reps. When the reps get too low stay with that weight and bump the reps back up, it’s so simple it’s comical. Let’s say you are using a shoulder press machine and these are your hypothetical numbers each time you do the lift
150x16
165x13
170x12
175x9(reps too low stick with it)
175x11
175x15
200x14
210x11
etc etc
All done in good form using the intended muscles. When that movement stops working at let’s say 245x9 that persons shoulders WILL BE BIGGER. Then they simply need a new main exercise for shoulders and the process begins again. [/quote]
i like that example, i assume those would be for multiple sets going as hard as u can on the last set right? although overall it’s definite progress i wonder if say 175 9x is really progress from 170 12x
Here’s the question people need to ask themselves when it comes to what’s by far the most important factor in muscle growth. Assuming both have access to all the necessary food…
If person A only had 10 lb dumbbells and a 110 lb standard weight set how big could they get?
If person B hadd dumbbells up to 200 and 2000 lbs of olympic weights how big could they get?
One person has unlimited potential to reach their upper genetic limit, and I hope it’s obvious as to who is who.
i like that example, i assume those would be for multiple sets going as hard as u can on the last set right? although overall it’s definite progress i wonder if say 175 9x is really progress from 170 12x
[/quote]
Well when you look around most successful people are ramping up to a top set, and I would only consider that last all out set when marking my progress. Not 120x10 easy reps, but the 245x9 that I burst blood vessels to get lol.
Overall is the key here. I just threw out random numbers to show a general trend. Some days you just might not have it, bad day at work or missed a meal or two etc. The key is if you are using increasingly heavier weights over the long term you will grow without a doubt in my mind assuming someone isn’t idiotic and eats rice cakes and tofu all day.
175x9 might not be mathematically “more” than 170x12, but it’s a step in the right direction. If 335x10 on that movement is the absolute upper limit on shoulder strength for that movement then once someone gets there they likely will have about as big as shoulders as they can. What I’m looking for is the way to get to 335x10 as fast as possible starting from 150xwhatever I said lol.
To me that means taking risks and TRYING to press forward as often as possible and not taking my sweet time making sure reps are right. If you TRY to add weight everytime and can reach that limit in 3 years than to me that’s success, someone who “keeps their body guessing” and when progress might slow down they do super slow, raise the volume, do drop sets etc and takes 7 years to get to 335x10(if they ever do) has totally failed compared to the other person. Yeah they got there, but they took over twice as long. I want things done as quickly and effectively as possible and I would assume(although judging by the majority on this board I would be wrong) that others are the same way. Why take longer and zig zag around when you can go straight.
This is turning into a rant but I hope you and others see my point I’m trying to get across. Cut the fluff and get down to basics of what works bottom line.
Peary Rader (do I have to explain who he is?) started the 20 rep squat program at 35lbs x 10 reps.
He worked himself up to a point that he was able to squat 20 reps with 300lbs. That’s like what, 93,652,321% stronger?
He multiplied his squat weight almost 10x and doubled the reps simultaneouly.
I pretty sure the internet wasn’t a happenin’ thing back in the 1940’s, although I could be wrong. The guy just kept adding weight to the bar and IIRC he ONLY squatted for leg work. Leg presses and extensions etc. were some years off.
i like that example, i assume those would be for multiple sets going as hard as u can on the last set right? although overall it’s definite progress i wonder if say 175 9x is really progress from 170 12x
Well when you look around most successful people are ramping up to a top set , and I would only consider that last all out set when marking my progress. Not 120x10 easy reps, but the 245x9 that I burst blood vessels to get lol.
[/quote]
that itself is an interesting topic. i’ve never really noticed that the most successful people ramp the weights they use. i see it used a lot with random people in the gym but generally when i see structured routines thats not how they’re set up
[quote]derek wrote:
Peary Rader (do I have to explain who he is?) started the 20 rep squat program at 35lbs x 10 reps.
He worked himself up to a point that he was able to squat 20 reps with 300lbs. That’s like what, 93,652,321% stronger?
He multiplied his squat weight almost 10x and doubled the reps simultaneouly.
I pretty sure the internet wasn’t a happenin’ thing back in the 1940’s, although I could be wrong. The guy just kept adding weight to the bar and IIRC he ONLY squatted for leg work. Leg presses and extensions etc. were some years off.[/quote]
thats impressive but how many years did that take? and 1 isolated instance isnt always a good example, although im not disagreeing with the method
Well when you look around most successful people are ramping up to a top set , and I would only consider that last all out set when marking my progress. Not 120x10 easy reps, but the 245x9 that I burst blood vessels to get lol.
that itself is an interesting topic. i’ve never really noticed that the most successful people ramp the weights they use. i see it used a lot with random people in the gym but generally when i see structured routines thats not how they’re set up
[/quote]
Watch any pro or amatuer bodbyuilder trian. The writeups say they hit each exercise for 3-5 sets 8-12 reps… then you watch say Cost of Redemption from Ronnie and his 4 sets are…
135x15
225x12
315x10
405x10
495x6
I mean how many sets was that to you? To me it’s just 1-2 with the 495 and possibly 405. That’s what I consider ramping up to a top weight for you work sets.
Dorian Yates did the SAME THING but simply only counted his work sets, and when people watched Blood and Guts they realize he trained just like them(except more intensity and more weight of course haha) but had a different perspective. No one would ever call Dorian Yates a high volume guy, and nobody would call Ronnie a low volume guy but their trianing was pretty similar on a workout by workout basis.
That’s my perspective on that topic although I’d like to keep it to the original intended topic since low volume/high volume usually starts silly arguments.
Watch any pro or amatuer bodbyuilder trian. The writeups say they hit each exercise for 3-5 sets 8-12 reps… then you watch say Cost of Redemption from Ronnie and his 4 sets are…
135x15
225x12
315x10
405x10
495x6
I mean how many sets was that to you? To me it’s just 1-2 with the 495 and possibly 405. That’s what I consider ramping up to a top weight for you work sets.
Dorian Yates did the SAME THING but simply only counted his work sets, and when people watched Blood and Guts they realize he trained just like them(except more intensity and more weight of course haha) but had a different perspective. No one would ever call Dorian Yates a high volume guy, and nobody would call Ronnie a low volume guy but their trianing was pretty similar on a workout by workout basis.
That’s my perspective on that topic although I’d like to keep it to the original intended topic since low volume/high volume usually starts silly arguments. [/quote]
yea i dont mean to change topics, i’ll probably make a different thread about something like that eventually.
and yea i wouldn’t call those working sets either, thats basically 1-2 sets like you said. however is that how they all train? i mean you obviously cant train like the pro’s. also i wonder how many exercises they’re doing in that case because that clearly isnt all that much
Q: How many BIG guys are still using the same weights (or even in the same freaking ballpark) as they used when they started out?
A: None.
Q: How many BIG guys do you know that cared whether or not they were decreasing rest periods in a structured fashion (if at all)?
A: None.
Q: How many big guys were striving to do “more work in less time” and watched the clock to make sure they were?
A: None.
Can we all agree (I already know most of us can) that weight progression, (using a sensible rep range) is the most important factor in building serious muscle?
Can we all agree that if you worked your ass off with only that one, single factor in mind, you’d be pretty much assured of success? (given that eating was an equal priority, of course.)
i definitely agree with what your saying derek. the note about ramping weight is actually pretty new to me. the only time i’ve ever ramped weight was for bill starrs 5x5. so you think that, for example, 1x135, 1x185, 1x225, 1x315 (near/at max reps) 1x325 (max reps) would be better than 3x300 (max reps on last set) or something similar? i always just pictured those “ramps” as warm up sets
[quote]David1991 wrote:
i definitely agree with what your saying derek. the note about ramping weight is actually pretty new to me. the only time i’ve ever ramped weight was for bill starrs 5x5. so you think that, for example, 1x135, 1x185, 1x225, 1x315 (near/at max reps) 1x325 (max reps) would be better than 3x300 (max reps on last set) or something similar? i always just pictured those “ramps” as warm up sets [/quote]
If ramping is new to you, how did you arrange your workout if you could say, bench 245lbs?
You wouldn’t lie down on a bench and unrack 245lbs cold and start benching would you?
You HAD to have ramped weight as your sets went on.
In effect, you’re right. All the previous sets WERE warm-ups. It just depends on whether or not you decide to CALL them warm-ups or “work sets” or not. Nothing really changes except what you call them.
[quote]derek wrote:
David1991 wrote:
i definitely agree with what your saying derek. the note about ramping weight is actually pretty new to me. the only time i’ve ever ramped weight was for bill starrs 5x5. so you think that, for example, 1x135, 1x185, 1x225, 1x315 (near/at max reps) 1x325 (max reps) would be better than 3x300 (max reps on last set) or something similar? i always just pictured those “ramps” as warm up sets
If ramping is new to you, how did you arrange your workout if you could say, bench 245lbs?
You wouldn’t lie down on a bench and unrack 245lbs cold and start benching would you?
You HAD to have ramped weight as your sets went on.
In effect, you’re right. All the previous sets WERE warm-ups. It just depends on whether or not you decide to CALL them warm-ups or “work sets” or not. Nothing really changes except what you call them. [/quote]
well generally i just do 1 warm up set and go right into it. maybe its because im young but after the one set i feel completely ready to start with the real weights. (maybe not the smartest thing?)
and although it is just about calling it different things I’m wondering about the 2 methods. i had always thought that most routines were set up so u did a constant weight for a certain amount of reps (like 3x8x150) with maybe a warm up on the first exercise. but what i got from the above posts is that a lot of people (most big guys from what was said) start with a lighter wieght and just work up to 1, maybe 2, max sets but all different weights…and that they do that even with exercises where the muscle is already warmed up
Well here’s the thing, guys that train all out simply can not repeat their performance again for multiple sets. Something has to give either pre or post all out effort.
Using 3x8 and 150, you have two options as far as I’m concerned…
the first two sets are increasingly harder, but very doable, the last being very hard
the first set is very hard and the reps and or weight must drop down the next two to meet the criteria
Now for option 1 we have to ask ourselves, why even do those first two sets when we are holding back energy/effort? Why not just work up to your heaviest weight of 8 reps and be done with it? It would have been heavier if we hadn’t wasted energy tiring ourselves out with the two previous sets
Option 2 to me is equally as unwise as the growth stimulus was given in the first set. Why do more if you don’t have to? If your muscle can handle 150x8 then what is 150x6 or 140x8 going to do to it? To me it’s nothing and just burning glycogen and tapping into recovery for no particular reason.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
Well here’s the thing, guys that train all out simply can not repeat their performance again for multiple sets. Something has to give either pre or post all out effort.
Using 3x8 and 150, you have two options as far as I’m concerned…
the first two sets are increasingly harder, but very doable, the last being very hard
the first set is very hard and the reps and or weight must drop down the next two to meet the criteria
Now for option 1 we have to ask ourselves, why even do those first two sets when we are holding back energy/effort? Why not just work up to your heaviest weight of 8 reps and be done with it? It would have been heavier if we hadn’t wasted energy tiring ourselves out with the two previous sets
Option 2 to me is equally as unwise as the growth stimulus was given in the first set. Why do more if you don’t have to? If your muscle can handle 150x8 then what is 150x6 or 140x8 going to do to it? To me it’s nothing and just burning glycogen and tapping into recovery for no particular reason.
[/quote]
for option 2 i dont see too much point.
but for option one thats how i figured the majority of people train. as far as i know the purpose of those multiple sets is to involve more muscle fibers and increase tension in the muscle which wouldnt be done with just the one set (could be done with ramping though so im not sure).
today for example i was doing DB bench and got 5 reps, the first set i could have got more, the 2nd i couldnt have done more than 5 but surprisingly (long rest, low reps helps) i got my 3rd, 4th, and 5th sets with the same weight at 5 reps not being able to get a 6th rep so im assuming the multiple sets with the same weight fatigued the muscle more
[quote]David1991 wrote:
derek wrote:
Peary Rader (do I have to explain who he is?) started the 20 rep squat program at 35lbs x 10 reps.
He worked himself up to a point that he was able to squat 20 reps with 300lbs. That’s like what, 93,652,321% stronger?
He multiplied his squat weight almost 10x and doubled the reps simultaneouly.
I pretty sure the internet wasn’t a happenin’ thing back in the 1940’s, although I could be wrong. The guy just kept adding weight to the bar and IIRC he ONLY squatted for leg work. Leg presses and extensions etc. were some years off.
thats impressive but how many years did that take? and 1 isolated instance isnt always a good example, although im not disagreeing with the method[/quote]
It only took two years and he also added just under 100 lbs to his body without much change at all in his routine over those two years.
Guess who was eating more than maintainance calories?
David to me your sets fell into option 1 because there is NO WAY you reached your limit after 5 reps and then were able to subsquently repeat it over and over again at the same level. You’d be a super human recovery freak if that were true. You had to stop short of your potential strength on that second set.
Gun to your head, rep or death, on that second set you couldn’t have pushed up the 6-7-8th reps maybe? Not the following sets as fatigue would set in eventually but the very first one you said you couldn’t do more than 5.
Getting back to the original point somewhat, what do you think will allow you to go from let’s say 70 lb bells to eventually pressing the 130s for the same reps… multiple sets of leaving some in the tank tiring yourself out just to meet your set quota or forgetting the dogma for a bit and pick your heaviest weight and destroy it for just that one work set?