We’re gonna have to end this here before things get violent.
I tell clients to train them every day or to go climb a mountain with a heavy ruck/vest every weekend (simulating being fat).
2 Likes
My thoughts are all bro-science. I don’t yet have much confidence in science-science.
We held to the belief that HGH and insulin grew everything, bones too, and organs. Most anyone can pick out of a crowd of lifters which ones were on “growth.” The jaw line and brow along with enormous traps was a huge tip off.
If bones are growing why wouldn’t slow twitch muscle also grow? These monsters spent a good bit of time chasing the full pump in the targeted muscle group, not only going to muscle fatigue failure.
1 Like
Thanks for those mate! I’ll listen through them today 
1 Like
Layne is such a smug cunt
2 Likes
Poliquin said the same of delts
1 Like
Think he means by varied rep ranges… if im not mistaken.
1 Like
To me, this is in the camp of “deadlift for abs” or “high reps squats are your cardio.” It sounds cool, but it’s just not the case.
In a bro science thread, my hypotheses cannot be disproven.
6 Likes
surely if this is bro science then any person with good arms who doesn’t train them, is disproving your statement.
And deadlifting for Abs is definitely a thing, but having a big belly for squats is hiding my excellent abs.
1 Like
This is now officially gospel. Everyone take note.
3 Likes
I mean deadlifting for abs is a thing, at least if you’re still in the “planks are for abs” world. But abs for abs is more of a thing.
EDIT:
Sledgehammers for abs?
Abs for the women?
1 Like
5 Likes
Text does not convey emotions or intentions as well as we wish it did. I’ll apologize for the tone in which I took your comments… We don’t exactly have a long history of conversations to go back on.
Attribution error.
I said it was a “shithead move”, but I did not call you a “shithead”, nor do I think you are one.
You’d have to specify which generation of HIT we’re talking about.
Jones?
Mentzer?
Yates?
Trudel?
Peters?
The last 3 got it right, IMO.
Jones blatantly got things wrong, but he was onto something.
Mentzer is much in the same boat, but he did pretty well with his earlier HIT stuff.
Yates really brought it home with training density and beyond failure.
Trudel brought in some incredible intensifiers and a great system.
Peters is the most up-to-date HIT advocate I know of and I really cannot dispute anything he advocates.
For clarification: I consider HIT to be exactly what it means… “High Intensity Training” or “training very close to, or to failure every set”.
No other dogma or system attached, just training to failure as the goal of every set.
I do believe that once insulin and HGH are introduced, training methods and systems that are most effective for everyone else - start go go out the window. I haven’t dabbled and I don’t really know if I ever plan to, but I will most certainly be using a professional coach if I do.
FST7 is the most common training system for recent olympians, and most certainly they are all on HGH. FST7 is not low volume, nor does it seem particularly beneficial to the normie (read: non-HGH user).
I think adjusting training is just as crucial to losing bodyfat as mastering your macros. I’m always flabbergasted by how many treat training as some set variable and never even considering changing their training to be more conducive to burning fat throughout the day. Or they just add steady state cardio.
To be more specific, consider these 2 leg workout that hit the same core movements.
Workout 1
A. Front squat: 10, 8, 6
B. Rack RDL: 4x8
C: Standing leg curl: 4x10
D: Bulgarian split squat: 3x12
E: Cardio
Workout 2
A1. Box jump: 3x4
A2. Front squat: 10, 8, 6
A3. KB swing: 3x20
A4. Hanging leg raise: 3x15
B1. Rack RDL: 4x8
B2. Standing leg curl: 4x10
B3. RKC plank: 4x0:30
C: Bulgarian split squat: 10 min EMOM x8/leg
D: Conditioning: 4 rounds (8 min)
-0:30 AMRAP BW squats
-0:30 AMRAP KB swings
-0:30 wall sit
-0:30 rest
2 Likes
I feel attacked 
TBH I view training and body composition through different lenses. Different tools for different goals.
For most, gaining muscle is not really going to happen in a deficit. For enhanced or fatties, they can do this. I follow a theory of increasing gear to sustain performance during a deficit… not exactly health-conscious, but that’s a different subject.
Of those two workouts you listed, the first one is going to be far more conducive to building (and retaining) muscle because more weight will be lifted.
I thoroughly agree that training can be adjusted to aid in fat loss, and there’s solid theory behind it too.
I just find that changing a training system from say HIT to Crossfit is going to sacrifice muscle at an unnecessary rate (using extremes).
Even using a more moderate approach as you listed, I find to be more likely to result in muscle wasting.
I guess I’m just a fan of dancing with the girl I brought.
I guess that’s another bro science concept behind my post. I’ve never really sacrificed muscle or strength training this way. I don’t subscribe to thinking that you can’t lean out, build muscle, and work on conditioning all at the same time. At my age, pretty much every workout tries to hit everything.
That style of training is actually inspired by Brian Alsruhe’s programs. He was the poster Alpha on here. I would definitely not call it Crossfit. There is built in progression that comes with it, and it can be adapted to different goals. It has certainly pushed me and helped me realize I can have a much greater work capacity in the gym. And now following that style of training no longer in a deficit, I’ve been recomping nicely adding thickness while leaning out. It’s opened up new pathways of training I never even considered before that seem to be just as effective if not more effective than straight sets I’d do before. I know that won’t last forever, but it’s powerful stuff!
3 Likes
Damn, I love this thread. As someone in the field, if you pay close attention, you’ll end up figuring that science agrees with broscience most of the time. Only stupid, dogmatic “science-based” people (many in France) that extrapolate studies to fit their narrative would say otherwise.
Well these rep range provide different stimulus so yeah ! For instance with heavier weights you’ll end up having more eccentric stress, which emphasizes more the distal portion, and different muscles than the concentric. Then you don’t use the same proportion of fiber types, the same energy systems…
Recent studies ( Give it a Rest, A systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis on the effect of inter-set rest interval duration on muscle hypertrophy) have found 1,5 minutes to be sufficient for hypertropy, and that waiting less than a minute is not that big of a deal. I’ve had half of my sessions this year with a strict 60 secs rest, and I build muscle, incredible right?
Well, maybe for you 
but for me and my long-ass arms… One year I didn’t train arms at all, I ended up with no gains and tendonitis. Last year I’ve been training my arms religiously : +2 cm
Yes, one study wanted to see if different rep ranges worked better for type I fiber muscles (ex soleus) or Type II (ex triceps) but didn’t find any difference in muscle size gains.
I’d have to agree with you. Trained both styles many years, and the best VISUAL results were with traditional bodybuilding + steps and LISS. Heck right now I’m doing it and WAITING that my bodyfat/visual is pleasing enough BEFORE starting my crossfit prep ahahahah
4 Likes
Yeah He definitely went off the rails on that one. If it takes a complete 2 weeks for recovery , in my view point. Somthing is fundamentally wrong with the indvidual who is training in the first place.
1 Like
It’s funny how these dudes can be so irritating without trying!
Layne doesn’t bother me, but I usually avoid Greg Knuckles.
Bro Science: Floor press is awesome for pecs.
Science Science: Floor press sucks for pecs because you don’t get into a deeply stretched position.
Reality: Dudes have been using floor press for pecs for awhile.
1 Like