Question to You Guys: What Do You THINK is the Main Driver for Muscle Growth?

Training
1267

I’m also a 1A and trying to combine thibs with paul’s ideas.

I think that this type of training could please you:

  • push: push presses / bench / weighted dips
  • pull: weighted chins / rows / pull downs
  • legs: squats / Romanian deads / hip thrusts

Warm up with doubles trying to make sure you’re fired up for your work sets. Try to set up a new 5rm, then a new 10rm, then a new 15rm for each and every lift. That’s 9 sets per workout (you can always do some extra pump work if that pleases you), and you’re challenged 27 times a week to put in the maximal intensity you’ve got and try to improve yourself across the board.

On off days, do something intense or challenging that isn’t lifting. Spare the joints and connective tissues.

Opinions?

2 Likes
1268

I do like that alot Tontongg. Except the whole 15rm thing lol. I could see me doing something like 2-6-10 RM though. In fact i might just do that today. Of course, certain exercises like pulldowns , hip thrusts etc nothing less than a 5 rep max seems appropriate.

1269

4-8-12 Might be workable and better for hypertrophy. I just know my 12 rep max on certain exercises like squat and push presses will be pathetic lol. But i love the idea of going all out on the different rep ranges for 3 sets per exercise.

1 Like
1270

Your back day is really redundant in movement selection. It’s all upperback work.

1271

Hey sir. What would you add as exercices that would target the rest of the back?

1 Like
1272

What do You think about this study?
I have couple of doubts.

  1. Shouldn’t title sound something more like “Resistance Training SAME MUSCLES Frequencies of 3 and 6 Times Per Week Produce Similar Muscular Adaptations in Resistance-Trained Men” to give clearer message?
  2. Training everyday the same muscles and going to failure on every set favours 3 day protocol because of recovery.
    Do You know of any study that compared e.g. 3 days FBW with 6 days Push Pull or PPL?
1273

I posted that one already above.

1274

Honestly I don’t see where, I only see that You’ve posted link to 2 versus 3 study, not this one.

1275

I see now. Yes it’s two different ones (I’ve barely tapped into my first cup of coffee).

I haven’t read this one fully yet. I don’t read abstracts and go by titles because it doesn’t give full insight. So I’d need to dive into this one and see what all went down.

1276

I hear you, I’ve been trying to focus on rowing machines that really hit the lats / lower lats. I’ll admit that I find a shredded and aesthetic upper back very pleasing

1277

Rows are fine for lats depending on how they are performed. Same for pulldowns. But generally people perform rows and pulldowns in a way that biases the upperback.

1 Like
1278

What internal cues do you like to use to ensure the lats are being biased? Do you try and get a stretch in the muscle you want to work, focus on the contraction in a particular way? I feel like my lats are probably my shittiest body part and could afford to be prioritized for a bit.

1279

As far as I have seen Paul perform rows and pull fowns, he likes them angled in a motion from up to down. There are some rowing machines that create that path of movement. Regarding the pull downs, he mentions upper back and lat pull downs. My guess is the straight up and down motion will hit the upper back more. While if you are leaning back a bit while pulling and bringing the handle closer to your chest will hit the lats more.

I am just guessing the movement patterns though. I bet Paul has few more techniques in his sleeves.

1280

Yes and I have an article coming here that is going to go into detail to help you guys actually bias the lats or upperback better.

It’s really all about arm path, and what you’re initiating with from a cue standpoint.

In lat training you need to pull the humerus down, but not the elbows coming behind the body but towards the hip. And you don’t arch the lower back. You brace with the abs.

With upperback training you initiate by driving the elbows back and arch more at the lower back in order to bias the upperback.

4 Likes
1281

If doing Db rows or pully rows I try and pull to the hip pocket in an arc motion to feel the lower lats. If I pull to chest like 99% of bros do, it’s all rear delt/rhomboids/traps

Look at

1282

Screenshot_20190728-155944_Chrome
Screenshot_20190728-155944_Chrome720×1280 356 KB
Screenshot_20190728-155937_Chrome
Screenshot_20190728-155937_Chrome720×1280 451 KB

1283

I can’t see what the arm path in that is going to do or is doing. So I can’t say what is getting worked there.

Remember, the lats attach to the spine and then the fibers run upwards at an angle into the humerus. So if you’re following the fibers and the humerus is coming upwards, it’s not the lats that are getting biased.

The humerus has to come down (to some degree) in order to bias the lats. Where the elbows will be more flared to hit various parts of the upperback.

From the looks of these snapshots this won’t be a lower lat movement. To really bias the lower lats you want a higher angle of the humerus with it coming down and the elbow sticking in to the hip (or near it).

1 Like
1284

So Chris Beardsley posted this the other day. Great graph and something we’ve been going over in here.

IMG_4715
IMG_47151242×1262 964 KB

He also covered the Haun study a while back, which was looking at ultra “high volumes” and had a great piece of insight about how we are defining “volume” or “high volume”.

That study looked at up to 36 sets of squats a week, but with 4 RIR. Basically there was no muscle growth despite the fact that they called it “high volume”. When in reality it’s this stupid “proximity to failure” that is the problem.

4 RIR in never EVER going to produce growth. Ever. In other to produce growth you have to activate the high threshold motor units under the slow shortening of the fibers. That combination occurs with a high degree of mechanical tension.

With me?

That doesn’t happen when you’re leaving reps on the table like that. So there’s no adaptation taking place because the HTMU aren’t being activated under a slow shortening of the fibers.

So here was his take on it.

4 RIR turns out to be about 0.6 worth of stimulating growth reps. Which means, it’s NOT high volume.

High volume has to take into account the number of reps performed that go towards stimulating growth.

Even more, he broke down what looks like the RP model of training.

For example, when training with 5 sets of 10 reps with the same weight with the squat or bench press, taking 5 minutes rest between sets, and aiming to reach failure only on the final set, the proximity to failure is 7RIR on the first set, 4–5RIR on the second set, 3RIR on the third set, 2RIR on the fourth set, and 0RIR on the final set. The total number of stimulating reps is 10 or 11, which is smaller than you would achieve by doing 3 sets of 5 reps to failure.

You’ll get more growth in a 3 sets of 5 training modality than doing 5 sets of 10 where you finally hit 0 RIR on the fifth set.

The literal definition of junk volume.

4 Likes
1285

To add to this guy, and I’ve been collecting so much of this for the hypertrophy manual…

So put all of this together - high level overview fellas…

  1. Make sure you’re using movements that fit your structure.

If you’re not built to squat, then choose a hack squat or leg press or some variation that fits your structure and mobility. If you have long femurs and shit ankle mobility then disregard the idiots on the net that tell you that you have to squat if you’re trying to grow your quads. Make sense?

  1. Make sure you executing properly with the movements that fit your structure.

This means that your setup, and how you’re performing those movements will dictate to where tension is going. If you’re doing shit reps, it’s a crap shoot to figure out what is getting the most tension. If you’re doing reps executed properly, then you should be making the target muscle work the hardest. Seems straight forwards.

  1. Start loading at that point.

  2. Count volume as only the number of reps you perform that actually go towards stimulating growth. This is what will eliminate you from doing junk volume.

4 reps in reserve is worth about 1 rep in terms of stimulating reps. So if you’re going to train with 4 reps in reserve then you’re going to have to do a metric butt ton of volume to get any growth from it. Meso cycles where there’s a lot of reps in reserve for weeks on end, builds systemic fatigue without ever truly activating the high threshold motor units. That’s why there’s so little growth.

The closer you get to failure, the more stimulating reps you’ll be performing. But all reps induce some level of fatigue. Both systemically and locally (muscular). The more systemic fatigue you have (nervous system) the fewer the reps you can perform, meaning you also don’t activate as many high threshold motor units. The more fatigued you are locally, when training a muscle group for example, then subsequent sets cause more activation of high threshold motor units. Again, that’s the SIZE principle at play here. The key here, is to minimize nervous system fatigue, while maximizing muscular fatigue with sets with a lot of growth stimulating reps. What’s the key there? For movements that are highly demanding, longer rest periods between sets. 3-4 minutes seems to be the ideal range.

  1. How to set your baseline for reps - If we know that 4 RIR is about 1 rep worth of growth, then that means a set of 5 that is a true 5RM has FIVE stimulating growth reps in it. Give or take. That should make sense to you.

Where does this leave us? It means that growth sets, on average, are probably going to have about 5 reps in them that go towards growth. A set of 10 taken to failure has…5 growth reps in it.

If you’re 5 RIR you did 0 reps worth of stimulation. If you’re 4 RIR it’s about 1 rep. If you’re 2 RIR it’s about 3 worth. This is likely why we see SIMILAR growth responses in 2 RIR to 0 RIR in most studies that are short term (10-12 weeks). Over a longer period of time I think the 0-1 RIR would bear out as far more beneficial. Which is what we did see in the Barbhalo study when the 5 and 10 set groups gained more mass and strength than the 15-20 set groups.

Once that stimulus has been caused, any extra work doesn’t go towards growth, but instead accumulates both more systemic and local fatigue. This would also make sense in that study as to why after 12 weeks (it was a 24 week study) you start to see a decline in the 15-20 set groups. They simply started accumulating more fatigue and couldn’t recover from it. Up to that point, at 12 weeks, the gains were fairly close.

This is why a model of weeks at a time where you’re leaving reps in the tank, then working up to failure over the course of weeks isn’t ideal to me. You’re training for weeks with no stimulating growth reps, accumulating fatigue during that time, then have to deload in order to recover.

Where a model where you’re not accumulating a ton of fatigue (local and systemic), performing a lot of growth reps, is the one where you’re going to be able to train at long periods at a time, making sustainable progress, without the need to deload and take breaks (which of course does nothing for growth).

Hope that helps.

5 Likes
1286

Oh and last, because I know someone is going to say “so just do sets of 5 then, right?”

No.

It doesn’t mean that.

higher intensities tend to take a greater toll on systemic recovery, i.e. inducing more systemic fatigue. Moderate intensities tend to take less of a toll on systemic recovery.

Again, this is why I think what we saw in the 7 sets of 3 vs 3 sets of 10 study bears out. The 7 sets of 3 were beat the hell up, tired, some dropped out.

The 3 sets of 10 group grew at the same rate, but felt good, said they could do more, and got in and out of the gym in little time.

The second scenario seems like a far better choice if you’re looking for muscle growth.

Again, you’re minimizing systemic fatigue and maximizing muscular fatigue.

Moderate loads - to failure or close to failure - limit the number of sets to fit within the framework of avoiding diminishing returns - base “volume” off of the number of growth producing reps you’re performing.

That’s money.

There’s also the part of frequency, which is more or less addressed incorrectly I think. It’s not about training a muscle group twice a week actually. Definitely not three times a week (the more I’m looking into the fatigue aspect the less fuzzy this is becoming).

The frequency aspect is actually far more complicated to figure this out, and it’s going to be very individualistic. So looking for an “answer here” is more or less not going to happen.

If you’re not recovered systemically from the workout then the number of motor units that will be activated by the nervous system will be down regulated. If you’re not recovered locally, then the muscle won’t be capable of producing enough force regardless of the condition of the nervous system (there’s localized factors behind this).

That’s something I haven’t fleshed out yet BUT it does indeed look like that twice a week for a muscle and once a week the following does seem to be ideal. Especially if you have overlap in muscles trained within sessions and of course depending on movement selection.

All of this will be more detailed in this manual.

4 Likes