[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m glad you agree that Type 2 fibers grow more from heavier weight at lower reps. I made the point because some of the quotes provided by Nominal Prospect seemed to ignore it. [/quote]
LOL.
How could anyone who has been here for even a year take anything Nominal Prospect writes seriously? All the guy has to do is lay low for a few months and there will be a fresh crop of newbs who don’t pay attention who will start to think he is some guru. I guess Nazis really are cool.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
My question is, How out of shape do you have to be to consider 10+ reps “more cardio”? You’ve got to admit, thats funny.
You are all over the map with those quotes, so I’m not sure what you are trying to prove with them unless its your Attention Deficit Disorder. Strength isn’t important? Size doesn’t come from heavy weights? The “pump” is the most important thin in training? Or is it that low reps are great for growth? Or was it that heavy weight grows tendons?
You want to train to get big? Lift heavier and heavier weights in the “bodybuilding” rep range- roughly six to 15 reps. How in the hell can you folks complicate this so much? [/quote]
…Because most of them haven’t made much progress so anyone who writes something in an even half way scientific tone is taken as telling the truth.
They don’t even question it…because they have no frame of reference to do so. That is why I keep asking for specifics of progress made…and you can see the responses I get.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
How could anyone who has been here for even a year take anything Nominal Prospect writes seriously? All the guy has to do is lay low for a few months and there will be a fresh crop of newbs who don’t pay attention who will start to think he is some guru. I guess Nazis really are cool.[/quote]
It was the newbies that have been here less than a year, that I was addressing with my post. Doing lots of high rep, low weight sets isn’t going to lead to as much overall muscle growth for most of them.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
dankid wrote:
So if you gain 15lbs while training in the 5 rep range, and it isn’t all fat, then do you agree that it was contractile hypertrophy. In this case it doesn’t seem so rare.
And changes in motor efficiency are neural changes in strength. (exs: changes in recruitment patters, synchronization, rate coding, and intermuscular coordination) Those are all neural in nature, thus neural strength gains are not rare.
I agree thouth that if you want to pack on a lot of muscle very quickly you should be aiming for a lot of fluid hypertrophy. I dont think sets to failure are a good idea, but multiple high rep sets to just short of failure combined with some serious carb loading and high calories.
You know, I went to school a long time, and have read a lot of stuff over the years about this hobby that I love…but I had to come to T-Nation and listen to the “I don’t want to bench press 400 lb” guy to discover that there is something called “fluid hypertrophy” and “contractile hypertrophy”.
You’ve been wanting to play scientist for a while now…and I’m finally in the mood to oblige you… give me some studies showing “fluid hypertrophy” exists, what it is, what causes it…ANYTHING. I’m waiting.[/quote]
But see, it doesn’t exist. We went through all of those studies in a thread right here. This much confusion occurs when you have people who have not been formally educated but who think what they read somewhere in an article compensates.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
You want to train to get big? Lift heavier and heavier weights in the “bodybuilding” rep range- roughly six to 15 reps. How in the hell can you folks complicate this so much? [/quote]
Which is pretty much what I just wrote. Whether you’re talking about 8-10 or 6-15, the point is that low rep sets at extreme weights and high rep sets at low weights aren’t going to maximize muscle growth as much as medium range sets at heavy weights.
[quote]forlife wrote:
MODOK wrote:
You want to train to get big? Lift heavier and heavier weights in the “bodybuilding” rep range- roughly six to 15 reps. How in the hell can you folks complicate this so much?
Which is pretty much what I just wrote. Whether you’re talking about 8-10 or 6-15, the point is that low rep sets at extreme weights and high rep sets at low weights aren’t going to maximize muscle growth as much as medium range sets at heavy weights.[/quote]
Waterbury seems to think heavy weights at low rep multiple sets works for muscle gain
Thing is this game is so varied in the approaches that work that there is room for folk like NP and X I enjoy reading them both
[quote]Norvegicus wrote:
forlife wrote:
MODOK wrote:
You want to train to get big? Lift heavier and heavier weights in the “bodybuilding” rep range- roughly six to 15 reps. How in the hell can you folks complicate this so much?
Which is pretty much what I just wrote. Whether you’re talking about 8-10 or 6-15, the point is that low rep sets at extreme weights and high rep sets at low weights aren’t going to maximize muscle growth as much as medium range sets at heavy weights.
Waterbury seems to think heavy weights at low rep multiple sets works for muscle gain[/quote]
Waterbury hates bodybuilding so why would someone with that goal follow what he has to say?
No X he loves it now he told me
[quote]Norvegicus wrote:
No X he loves it now he told me[/quote]
?
Quit typing.
Why? You own this site?
[quote]forlife wrote:
It was the newbies that have been here less than a year, that I was addressing with my post. Doing lots of high rep, low weight sets isn’t going to lead to as much overall muscle growth for most of them.[/quote]
Ya, but if you take a newbie that can bench the bar 20 times, and have them work with sets of 20 until they increase this to 135x20 you cant say this is going to be better or worse than them working with sets of 10 and building up. The key factor is no matter what they do, theyve gotta eat to grow.
And yes, if you use “light weights” and dont push yourself to progress (ie: the newbie stuck with benching 45x20 and never tried to increase) then in that case he wouldn’t progress much.
You dont have to be strong to be big, and you dont have to be big to be strong. BUT in general people take the path of increasing both as it seems more logical.
So it doesn’t necessarily matter what rep range you work in, as long as you are progressing. And youve gotta eat enough to grow.
***The only valid argument I can see against this is that learning complex lifts is much easier with lower reps and more sets.
[quote]Norvegicus wrote:
Waterbury seems to think heavy weights at low rep multiple sets works for muscle gain[/quote]
I know, I followed one of his programs as a newbie and saw relatively little progress compared to when I did moderate rep, heavy weight sets.
Waterbury’s training methods are quite popular and his latest book is called Huge In A Hurry so I think he sort of doesnt “hate” bodybuilders anymore if ever he did infact hate them
[quote]Norvegicus wrote:
Waterbury’s training methods are quite popular and his latest book is called Huge In A Hurry so I think he sort of doesnt “hate” bodybuilders anymore if ever he did infact hate them
[/quote]
This can’t be for real. Please, link me to a site showing the progress made from all of this popularity. I want to see at least 3-5 people who are at least my size.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Norvegicus wrote:
Waterbury’s training methods are quite popular and his latest book is called Huge In A Hurry so I think he sort of doesnt “hate” bodybuilders anymore if ever he did infact hate them
This can’t be for real. Please, link me to a site showing the progress made from all of this popularity. I want to see at least 3-5 people who are at least my size.[/quote]
What fat you mean?
[quote]dankid wrote:
Ya, but if you take a newbie that can bench the bar 20 times, and have them work with sets of 20 until they increase this to 135x20 you cant say this is going to be better or worse than them working with sets of 10 and building up. [/quote]
Working with sets of 10 instead of sets of 20 will allow the newbie to push heavier weights sooner, it will stimulate more Type 2 muscle growth, and it will lead to more overall size gains.
Actually Waterbury doesn’t think that just low reps is the way to go. If you look at his programs he prescribes all rep ranges. His thing is that you always accelerate the bar maximally in order to recruit maximal motor units and to terminate sets when the speed slows which tends to be around 15 seconds max. This method is great for “functional” hypertrophy for the average guy. Maybe a little simplistic for athletes and people wanting to be very strong.
Sure he doesn’t write these programs for bodybuilders, but you can easily adapt this to add a ton of muscle if you know what you are doing.
[quote]Norvegicus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Norvegicus wrote:
Waterbury’s training methods are quite popular and his latest book is called Huge In A Hurry so I think he sort of doesnt “hate” bodybuilders anymore if ever he did infact hate them
This can’t be for real. Please, link me to a site showing the progress made from all of this popularity. I want to see at least 3-5 people who are at least my size.
What fat you mean?[/quote]
Yes. I want to see 3-5 people as “fat” as I am carrying roughly the same amount of lean body mass. Where are the pictures of the built people?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Norvegicus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Norvegicus wrote:
Waterbury’s training methods are quite popular and his latest book is called Huge In A Hurry so I think he sort of doesnt “hate” bodybuilders anymore if ever he did infact hate them
This can’t be for real. Please, link me to a site showing the progress made from all of this popularity. I want to see at least 3-5 people who are at least my size.
What fat you mean?
Yes. I want to see 3-5 people as “fat” as I am carrying roughly the same amount of lean body mass. Where are the pictures of the built people?
[/quote]
Paul Teutul snr