it’s not the same thing…
you may cause similar amounts of protein degradation(breaking down of fibers), but the higher rep range has unique effects on hormonal release…
as i stated before, the continous TUT releases more muscle IGF-1 than low rep training…this hormone activates satellite cells that are heavilly involved in the hypertrophy process…
satellite cells are basically pre muscle cells…when they are activated they fuse to existing muscle cells increasing their size…
that’s why the majority of your training should be in the hypertrophy range…that is also why you need to do isolation exercises and exercises that induce eccentric damage to the fibers…
[quote]D Public wrote:
it’s not the same thing…
you may cause similar amounts of protein degradation(breaking down of fibers), but the higher rep range has unique effects on hormonal release…
as i stated before, the continous TUT releases more muscle IGF-1 than low rep training…this hormone activates satellite cells that are heavilly involved in the hypertrophy process…
satellite cells are basically pre muscle cells…when they are activated they fuse to existing muscle cells increasing their size…
that’s why the majority of your training should be in the hypertrophy range…that is also why you need to do isolation exercises and exercises that induce eccentric damage to the fibers…
[/quote]
Where are your results to prove this? Not to be a dick, but im speaking from my own experience how about you?
I don’t need to prove anything.
Every good pro and natural bber on this planet trains mainly with higher reps(more than 4).
If you think otherwise…so be it…
No one is arguing that higher reps are better for size. I just don’t see the point in all this “IGF-1 release” talk…when you haven’t even gotten to, or surpassed your beginner gains.
[quote]K-Man32 wrote:
Where are your results to prove this? Not to be a dick, but im speaking from my own experience how about you?[/quote]
Your avatar and this post are not congruent.
Your profile says you’re 21 and have been training for ~2 years. Did you forget you had your 16" peashooters showing up next to your posts or something?
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]K-Man32 wrote:
Where are your results to prove this? Not to be a dick, but im speaking from my own experience how about you?[/quote]
Your avatar and this post are not congruent.
Your profile says you’re 21 and have been training for ~2 years. Did you forget you had your 16" peashooters showing up next to your posts or something?[/quote]
Around 17.5 inch peashooters to be exact. Thanks for the kind words.
I kinda view it like this these days: There’s such a shit storm of information the only real way you can gauge any sort of method is by:
A- Doing what the guy’s you want to look like do
B- Experimenting within certain guidelines to find personal preference (but without going too far away from point A)
Regarding B, it would be an interesting discussion to comment on the balance between the exercises that are purely “hardest” for you and those which hit the muscle best. For a good example, whilst high-rep kroc rows are an awesome test of balls and intensity, once I maxed my uni’s dumbells at 28 x 50kg I had to either drop the exercise because it would have been 30+ reps, or switch to less body english and a held contraction. I did the latter and the 50k for 28 suddenly became like 12, the point is that even with “good” form I still did not particularly feel the exercise in my lats as was originally intended.
So a balance- you can’t pussy out and just try to build yourself JUST via kickbacks and pec dec, but at the same time the compound/intensity movements have to warrant their place via more then just weight on the bar/machine…
IMO
[quote]K-Man32 wrote:
Around 17.5 inch peashooters to be exact. [/quote]
That’s not very exact
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
I kinda view it like this these days: There’s such a shit storm of information the only real way you can gauge any sort of method is by:
A- Doing what the guy’s you want to look like do
B- Experimenting within certain guidelines to find personal preference (but without going too far away from point A)
Regarding B, it would be an interesting discussion to comment on the balance between the exercises that are purely “hardest” for you and those which hit the muscle best. For a good example, whilst high-rep kroc rows are an awesome test of balls and intensity, once I maxed my uni’s dumbells at 28 x 50kg I had to either drop the exercise because it would have been 30+ reps, or switch to less body english and a held contraction. I did the latter and the 50k for 28 suddenly became like 12, the point is that even with “good” form I still did not particularly feel the exercise in my lats as was originally intended.
So a balance- you can’t pussy out and just try to build yourself JUST via kickbacks and pec dec, but at the same time the compound/intensity movements have to warrant their place via more then just weight on the bar/machine…
IMO[/quote]
Yes there is a shitstorm of information and you are right in the heart of it. Quit overcomplicating everything.
[quote]Mexecutioner wrote:
Yes there is a shitstorm of information and you are right in the heart of it. Quit overcomplicating everything.[/quote]
Don’t worry I am. Bodybuilding is my goal and that’s what I’m following. Sure decent strength across pressing lifts will follow- after all bodybuilders usually have respectable pressing figures regardless of squatting/deadlifting abilities…