The Pump: Necessary or Obsolete

Your best muscle groups, size and strength wise pump up the easiest. They might receive a pump even walking upstairs, shaving, combing hair, carrying luggage, or mowing the lawn.

Your worse muscle groups are hard to pump.

So tell me, guys, is getting a pump necessary for growth or is the ABILITY to get a pump necessary for growth?!?

that depends, did the chicken come first or the egg?

Not sure. This is why I started this thread. Any thoughts?

My quads and glutes receive a pump just from walking up stairs. My shoulders and bis receive a pump from holding a phone to my ear too long. My traps get pumped from carrying things. On the other hand, for my chest and calves to receive a pump, I have to blitz them drop sets and negatives, quite a bit more work and effort compared to going about daily business like walking upstairs and carrying groceries or a phone.

Derek, X, Popular, Stu, Candy, what say you?

I do not think a blood pump is needed for growth, I do whoever think it helps by getting blood, oxygen, and nutrients to the muscles.

But let me ask you this. On your lagging muscle groups like your chest, how much muscle control do you have over these muscles? The reason I ask is because I can easily pump my chest up by sitting here flexing it. You know, the bouncing chest trick. I’ve always had great muscle control over the muscles that respond the best for me. So what I’m getting at is it may not be a corilation between the abilty to pump the muscle, but a corilation between the amount of muscle control you have over those muscles.

[quote]sbr wrote:
that depends, did the chicken come first or the egg?[/quote]

Wher did you take that image from? where is that sculpture?

I think the pump helps stretch out the muscle fascia which allows for more growth. I’ve been giving FST7 (Facial Stretching Training) training a try lately which is 7 sets with only 30 sec of rest in between. The intense pump stretches the fascia allowing for more growth. Sythol works on the same principle.

Is the pump required for growth? NO
Does it help? Possibly.
Does it feel good? Yes, and feeling good when training helps motivation.

In my training I only get a pump in bi’s/tri’s, spinal erectors and forearms. These are not the only growth areas I have, I’d look pretty weird if I didn’t have a large back & chest, reasonable traps, quads / hamstrings and big calves (19", the only advantage to being a fat boy!)

I think it is one of the things that help for the reasons mentioned about (MFS etc)
along with:

High Protein
Carbs/Glycogen
Breakdown of Fibres
Rest
Straining
Overload
Progression
and more… but i think that it is beneficial to get a pump for the Myofacial aspect, the increase of fluids there from the lymphatic system - removing waste also, and because when i am pumped… i look SWOLE baby yeah!

JJ

[quote]juanjromero wrote:
sbr wrote:
that depends, did the chicken come first or the egg?

Wher did you take that image from? where is that sculpture?[/quote]

I found it randomly while i was browsing. No idea man, sorry.

Hmnnn now here’s a topic that’s been getting kicked around for a long while, and even though everyone has their theories, they all seem somewhat plausable.

I think Hagar hit a good thought talking about stretching the fascia, which may ALLOW for more growth, but not necessarily be indiccative of growth occuring. It could sort of be likened to creatine: It will help with your power output, which in theory will allow you to train more intensely, and resultingly give the potential to stimulate more muscle growth.

Its is entirely possible to just state from antectodal evidence that a pump does not equate to muscle growth. I know that some of my better muscle groups don’t pump up and feel all engourged when I train them. On the other hand, other groups get a puffy, bloated feeling, and yet I feel that they are lagging behind progress wise.

Larry Scott wrote (a long while ago) that the pump is a good indicator of overtraining. He used standing BB curls as an example. Each set resulted in a pumped feeling, until he did one set too many, and actually caused a sudden loss of his pump. Now I’m not sure how scientific this is, but it apparently stuck in the back of my mind all these years, and certainly makes me err on the side of doing too fewer sets as opposed to too many.

Also, there are so many other elements involved in getting a pump, water levels, sodium ingested throughout the day, sleeping patterns, time of day you’re training… and even if someone were to do a study of pump = growth, what objective measure would equate to being ‘pumped’ (it’s got to be more than just the feeling you get from a couple of quick sets and the increased blood flow).

I’m curious to hear others chime in on this as well.

S

I think the pump helps with growth or volume of the muscle when you actually have a decent amount of muscle, not as much before.

[quote]juanjromero wrote:
sbr wrote:
that depends, did the chicken come first or the egg?

Wher did you take that image from? where is that sculpture?[/quote]

Bobbie Carlyle: Self Made Man, Bobbie Carlyle - Bobbie's Official Website, Sculpture, Loveland Colorado Sculptors

Some people believe that the pump is good because it pushes extra nutrients into the target muscle group, swelling it up and helping to stretch the muscle fascia allowing more room for growth.

I personally notice a difference between bodybuilders that train using exclusively “pump training” and those that just lift hard and heavy all of the time, and the best physiques are the ones that do both.

What effect does having more flexible muscle fascia have on the shape and aesthetic appeal of the muscle groups? Why do Dorian Yates and Arnold Scharzennehardtospell have startlingly different physiques, is it all just genetics?

I have absolutely no idea.

I love feeling the pump, it’s just plain fun and I don’t plan to ever stop trying to achieve it on my last exercise(s). So let’s hope it is doing some kind of good. haha

To briefly discuss Mr. Popular’s Yates v Arnold and differeing physiques I do think it is inherantly genetic what muscle shape we will develop. How many bodybuilders have copied Arnold’s routines at this point? Millions? How many have chests and biceps like him? 0 on my last check.

If training dictated shape to that degree we’d have legions of these round muscle bellied mini Arnolds running around and we just don’t. Arnold could absolutely 100% never turn his back into a dominant part like Yates and vice versa for Yate’s biceps or chest.

I am mostly in agreement with flipping this argument around and saying that the muscles you have least control over will be hardest to pump, and that it isn’t because they are hard to pump they are your weaker parts.

That’s an excellent point actually, although I would say that most of the people that “follow” arnold’s program aren’t immitating what he truly did to build the body he had from when he very first began.

Even taking a look at pro bodybuilding in this day and age, we can all point out which bodybuilders famously train with light weights and go for the pump, and which ones train super heavy and aim for strength, particularly the former powerlifters.

But the real standout champions are the ones that do both of course.

That is why I think there is something to be said for “pump” training, even though obviously the main focus of any bodybuilding routine should be pushing the limits of strength in every muscle group. There is something behind it, whether it is fascia stretching, occlusion, or just the added volume and fatigue to the target muscle group.

Arnold is a guy that tried it all, and I think he represents a good medium even though he is always pinned as the “supervolume guy”.

He is famous for his biceps and they were definitely gifted with perfect shape, but how many people then or now could rep cheat curls with 275lbs?

Arnold had the strength but he also felt that the pump was an equal focus. So take from that what you will, I know DC guys only believe in the pump as a side effect of the triple rest-pause haha, although you supplement your lifting with extreme stretching so maybe its a area more closely related than science currently knows.

This is an unusually good thread.

On a sidenote, there seem to be very few people that will ever get a pump in their back, and if they do it’s either just their traps or their lats (or lower back but who the hell wants that). Does this mean that those guys that have a great back can easily engorge this area, or does it mean that the pump might just not matter a damn bit? Again i don’t know. haha

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Not sure. This is why I started this thread. Any thoughts?

My quads and glutes receive a pump just from walking up stairs. My shoulders and bis receive a pump from holding a phone to my ear too long. My traps get pumped from carrying things. On the other hand, for my chest and calves to receive a pump, I have to blitz them drop sets and negatives, quite a bit more work and effort compared to going about daily business like walking upstairs and carrying groceries or a phone.

Derek, X, Popular, Stu, Candy, what say you? [/quote]

Bi’s get pumped using a squirt gun or hand tools, same with forearms.

Tri’s, big-time pump with any pressing I do.

Quads and stairs? Oh yes.

I wonder how much the “mind muscle” connection has to do with the pump as well. I happen to get a great pump in my back, including mid traps/rhomboids- and back is the workout that I love the most and look forward to doing most every week.

[quote]Scott M wrote:
To briefly discuss Mr. Popular’s Yates v Arnold and differeing physiques I do think it is inherantly genetic what muscle shape we will develop. How many bodybuilders have copied Arnold’s routines at this point? Millions? How many have chests and biceps like him? 0 on my last check.

If training dictated shape to that degree we’d have legions of these round muscle bellied mini Arnolds running around and we just don’t. Arnold could absolutely 100% never turn his back into a dominant part like Yates and vice versa for Yate’s biceps or chest.
[/quote]

Just to back up the shape being related to genetics concept, note that Arnold’s own arms each had very different biceps. I doubt he was training them differently.