Thib's Random Thought of the Day

Training
241

STEROIDS, REPS AND WEIGHT

I have received some comments how low reps are not optimal to build muscle and how guys who are relying on low reps and heavy weights and who got big probably were using steroids. Nonsense!

If anything, it’s the opposite!

From my experience working with a myriad of athletes and bodybuilders, natural and enhanced, individuals who are using steroids might respond better to higher reps and lower loads while naturals will grow more from high-force (heavy weight or explosive lifts) training with low reps.

This is a viewpoint shared by Micheal Gundhil, one of the foremost bodybuilding authority in Europe.

First of all steroids tend to increase muscle mass a lot more than tendon strength, in fact many steroids make the tendons more brittle and fragile. So you have a muscle that is much larger and stronger, but with a weaker attachment.

This both increases the risk of injury and eventually decreases the potential for strength gains because of an inhibitory mechanism due to the weaker tendons (the body will want to protect itself for a tendon tear and will reduce force production).

So ‘‘enhanced’’ athletes might progress fast at first from a program based on heavy, low reps lifting, but the risk of injuries will be drastically higher than for a natural trainee.

Not to mention that ‘‘enhanced’’ athletes can tolerate and recover from more training volume: they have a much greater rate of protein synthesis and also replenish muscle glycogen to a greater and faster extent. For that reason, they will thrive on doing a lot more work in the gym.

Finally, the increased rate of protein synthesis and constant anabolic state they are in reduces the need for a super powerful growth stimulus. I’m not saying that steroids are an ‘‘easy way out’’… to get the most out of it you must still train hard; but a lot of big bodies have been built with ‘‘easy’’ workouts when using steroids.

So basically in an “enhanced” athlete you have:

  • increased protein synthesis and glycogen storage + lowered cortisol = better tolerance for volume
  • constant anabolic state = less need for a powerful growth stimulus
  • muscles that get stronger much faster than tendons = greater potential for injury

So this means that an enhanced lifter will respond better to high volume/moderate load training than their natural counterparts.

I’m not saying that low-reps/high force training is not effective for drug-using lifters, it is VERY effective. What I’m saying is that this type of training might be more hazardous for the enhanced and not as necessary to stimulate growth. As such, a steroid-using bodybuilder would be best to use high-force/low reps lifting in short cycles followed by bouts of higher volume training.

A natural lifter doesn’t have these “problems”. While his muscles will still grow stronger faster than the tendons, the difference is not as pronounced (especially considering that some steroids will make the tendons weaker). So the risk of low reps lifting is much lower for a natural trainee, so he can stay on this type of training for longer.

Actually I believe that high volume training will cause more injuries than high-force training in the natural lifter.

Since the natural lifter’s anabolic to catabolic (testosterone, igf-1, GH / cortisol) ratio is not constantly in the positive range, the regulation of training volume is much more important if maximum progress is desired. So a natural lifter who does too much volume can really short-circuit his gains.

And because it is harder for a natural lifter to stimulate growth, he needs a more powerful stimulus… high-force lifting.

This is why I believe that low-reps/high force training, contrary to what some believe, is actually better suited to natural lifters than enhanced ones.

242

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
STEROIDS, REPS AND WEIGHT

I have received some comments how low reps are not optimal to build muscle and how guys who are relying on low reps and heavy weights and who got big probably were using steroids. Nonsense!

If anything, it’s the opposite!

From my experience working with a myriad of athletes and bodybuilders, natural and enhanced, individuals who are using steroids might respond better to higher reps and lower loads while naturals will grow more from high-force (heavy weight or explosive lifts) training with low reps.

This is a viewpoint shared by Micheal Gundhil, one of the foremost bodybuilding authority in Europe.

First of all steroids tend to increase muscle mass a lot more than tendon strength, in fact many steroids make the tendons more brittle and fragile. So you have a muscle that is much larger and stronger, but with a weaker attachment.

This both increases the risk of injury and eventually decreases the potential for strength gains because of an inhibitory mechanism due to the weaker tendons (the body will want to protect itself for a tendon tear and will reduce force production).

So ‘‘enhanced’’ athletes might progress fast at first from a program based on heavy, low reps lifting, but the risk of injuries will be drastically higher than for a natural trainee.

Not to mention that ‘‘enhanced’’ athletes can tolerate and recover from more training volume: they have a much greater rate of protein synthesis and also replenish muscle glycogen to a greater and faster extent. For that reason, they will thrive on doing a lot more work in the gym.

Finally, the increased rate of protein synthesis and constant anabolic state they are in reduces the need for a super powerful growth stimulus. I’m not saying that steroids are an ‘‘easy way out’’… to get the most out of it you must still train hard; but a lot of big bodies have been built with ‘‘easy’’ workouts when using steroids.

So basically in an “enhanced” athlete you have:

  • increased protein synthesis and glycogen storage + lowered cortisol = better tolerance for volume
  • constant anabolic state = less need for a powerful growth stimulus
  • muscles that get stronger much faster than tendons = greater potential for injury

So this means that an enhanced lifter will respond better to high volume/moderate load training than their natural counterparts.

I’m not saying that low-reps/high force training is not effective for drug-using lifters, it is VERY effective. What I’m saying is that this type of training might be more hazardous for the enhanced and not as necessary to stimulate growth. As such, a steroid-using bodybuilder would be best to use high-force/low reps lifting in short cycles followed by bouts of higher volume training.

A natural lifter doesn’t have these “problems”. While his muscles will still grow stronger faster than the tendons, the difference is not as pronounced (especially considering that some steroids will make the tendons weaker). So the risk of low reps lifting is much lower for a natural trainee, so he can stay on this type of training for longer.

Actually I believe that high volume training will cause more injuries than high-force training in the natural lifter.

Since the natural lifter’s anabolic to catabolic (testosterone, igf-1, GH / cortisol) ratio is not constantly in the positive range, the regulation of training volume is much more important if maximum progress is desired. So a natural lifter who does too much volume can really short-circuit his gains.

And because it is harder for a natural lifter to stimulate growth, he needs a more powerful stimulus… high-force lifting.

This is why I believe that low-reps/high force training, contrary to what some believe, is actually better suited to natural lifters than enhanced ones.[/quote]

Very good post CT. Do you believe reps in the 4-6 range wont target fast twitch fibers as well and if they did wouldnt they be better to use because of the increased time under tension. iknow some believe tut is irrelevant but many have a hard time letting go of the fact that most pro bb “enhanced or not” traing in the 6-10 rep range. Looking forward to your response. Great Post !

243

LOW REPS IS RELATIVE

I recently found that the number of ideal reps to perform is dependent on the movement.

I love low reps and feel that they are the superior way to train for maximum growth and strength. But what constitutes low reps vary depending on the movement. In my opinion this depends on the length of the range of motion and the neural implication during the exercise.

For example a barbell shrug has a range of motion of roughly 2-3" and a squat about 2 feet and a half. So it would be foolish to think that 5 reps on one would have a similar training effect as on the other. For the shrug or calf raises 8-10 reps might constitute low reps whereas for squats it might be 2-5.

By the same token a neurologically demanding exercise and a less demanding one might have a different “low reps range” even if they have a similar range of motion.

For example low reps on the leg press might be 6-8 while it is 2-5 for squats.

This is something that, even though is fairly obvious, I only realized recently and have started to use in my own training… sometimes the simpler solutions are the ones you figure out last!

Here is a table showing what constitutes low reps for a movement:

Isolation exercise on a machine: 8-10
Isolation exercise with free-weights or pulley: 6-8
Compound movement on a machine: 4-6
Compound movement with free weights or pulley: 2-4
Complex exercise (e.g. power clean, power snatch and the likes): 1-3

244

In the past you suggested 3-5 reps for stuff like delt raises, etc. So 6-8 is better ?

245

[quote]Thy. wrote:
In the past you suggested 3-5 reps for stuff like delt raises, etc. So 6-8 is better ?[/quote]

Yes I did. I’m not saying that it won’t work. Doing 3-5 reps on isolation movements is kinda like doing 1-2 reps on compound movements; it works but it might not be the best way to train all the time.

246

Thibs,

  • Power (Cheating) Shrugs → 2-4 reps, or 4-6 reps?
247

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

I love low reps and feel that they are the superior way to train for maximum growth and strength. But what constitutes low reps vary depending on the movement. In my opinion this depends on the length of the range of motion and the neural implication during the exercise.

For example a barbell shrug has a range of motion of roughly 2-3" and a squat about 2 feet and a half. So it would be foolish to think that 5 reps on one would have a similar training effect as on the other. For the shrug or calf raises 8-10 reps might constitute low reps whereas for squats it might be 2-5.

[/quote]

Wouldn’t both of those exercises take the targeted muscle through a full range of motion though, from the muscle being completely stretched to completely contracted? Since that’s the case I don’t understand why it matters how long/short the ROM is since it’s the same thing to those muscles. Not that I disagree that isolation exercises should have higher reps, I just don’t see the reasoning behind the above.

248

[quote]pumped340 wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

I love low reps and feel that they are the superior way to train for maximum growth and strength. But what constitutes low reps vary depending on the movement. In my opinion this depends on the length of the range of motion and the neural implication during the exercise.

For example a barbell shrug has a range of motion of roughly 2-3" and a squat about 2 feet and a half. So it would be foolish to think that 5 reps on one would have a similar training effect as on the other. For the shrug or calf raises 8-10 reps might constitute low reps whereas for squats it might be 2-5.

[/quote]

Wouldn’t both of those exercises take the targeted muscle through a full range of motion though, from the muscle being completely stretched to completely contracted? Since that’s the case I don’t understand why it matters how long/short the ROM is since it’s the same thing to those muscles. Not that I disagree that isolation exercises should have higher reps, I just don’t see the reasoning behind the above.
[/quote]

I think it has to do with the shorter time under tension associated with movements that have a shorter ROM (for example, a 40X0 tempo with a movement that has a 3" ROM would be ridiculous).

249

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
LOW REPS IS RELATIVE

I recently found that the number of ideal reps to perform is dependent on the movement.

I love low reps and feel that they are the superior way to train for maximum growth and strength. But what constitutes low reps vary depending on the movement. In my opinion this depends on the length of the range of motion and the neural implication during the exercise.

For example a barbell shrug has a range of motion of roughly 2-3" and a squat about 2 feet and a half. So it would be foolish to think that 5 reps on one would have a similar training effect as on the other. For the shrug or calf raises 8-10 reps might constitute low reps whereas for squats it might be 2-5.

By the same token a neurologically demanding exercise and a less demanding one might have a different “low reps range” even if they have a similar range of motion.

For example low reps on the leg press might be 6-8 while it is 2-5 for squats.

This is something that, even though is fairly obvious, I only realized recently and have started to use in my own training… sometimes the simpler solutions are the ones you figure out last!

Here is a table showing what constitutes low reps for a movement:

Isolation exercise on a machine: 8-10
Isolation exercise with free-weights or pulley: 6-8
Compound movement on a machine: 4-6
Compound movement with free weights or pulley: 2-4
Complex exercise (e.g. power clean, power snatch and the likes): 1-3

[/quote]
This would change the i,bb workout, would it not? Some exercises such as calf raise come to mind. The 3 reps does sound a little low for calf raises. Like CT says, might be good once in a while but over the long term some higher reps would be more productive to build hypertrophy. I’m thinking that we can also add the fiber make-up of a muscle to the determinant of total load and volume of an exercise. A bodypart such as the soleus is predominantly made up of high slow twitch fiber and the hamstring muscles, predominantly fast twitch therefore, in general, the soleus muscle will be better developed with a higher rep range and lower load and the hamstring with a lower rep range and higher percentage of max load.
Your thoughts CT?

250

[quote]loopfitt wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
LOW REPS IS RELATIVE

I recently found that the number of ideal reps to perform is dependent on the movement.

I love low reps and feel that they are the superior way to train for maximum growth and strength. But what constitutes low reps vary depending on the movement. In my opinion this depends on the length of the range of motion and the neural implication during the exercise.

For example a barbell shrug has a range of motion of roughly 2-3" and a squat about 2 feet and a half. So it would be foolish to think that 5 reps on one would have a similar training effect as on the other. For the shrug or calf raises 8-10 reps might constitute low reps whereas for squats it might be 2-5.

By the same token a neurologically demanding exercise and a less demanding one might have a different “low reps range” even if they have a similar range of motion.

For example low reps on the leg press might be 6-8 while it is 2-5 for squats.

This is something that, even though is fairly obvious, I only realized recently and have started to use in my own training… sometimes the simpler solutions are the ones you figure out last!

Here is a table showing what constitutes low reps for a movement:

Isolation exercise on a machine: 8-10
Isolation exercise with free-weights or pulley: 6-8
Compound movement on a machine: 4-6
Compound movement with free weights or pulley: 2-4
Complex exercise (e.g. power clean, power snatch and the likes): 1-3

[/quote]
This would change the i,bb workout, would it not? Some exercises such as calf raise come to mind. The 3 reps does sound a little low for calf raises. Like CT says, might be good once in a while but over the long term some higher reps would be more productive to build hypertrophy. I’m thinking that we can also add the fiber make-up of a muscle to the determinant of total load and volume of an exercise. A bodypart such as the soleus is predominantly made up of high slow twitch fiber and the hamstring muscles, predominantly fast twitch therefore, in general, the soleus muscle will be better developed with a higher rep range and lower load and the hamstring with a lower rep range and higher percentage of max load.
Your thoughts CT?[/quote]

I wouldn’t change it. I always mentioned that the goal of IBB is to introduce the basic principles behind high threshold hypertrophy. One of the most important principle is producing as much force as possible during the concentric phase of the movement. To learn that properly you must stay focused and get only perfect reps.

By using low rep sets it is easier to stay focused on all the reps, which is important when learning a new skill. If exploding is not natural to you, doing sets of 6 or 8 reps might not be maximally productive as 3-5 of those might not be perfect reps, negating the learning effect.

But yes, the subsequent programs, which are more advanced and include a lot more HTH techniques will have different rep ranges.

251

[quote]tolismann wrote:
Thibs,

  • Power (Cheating) Shrugs → 2-4 reps, or 4-6 reps?
    [/quote]

4-6 although I sometimes drop down to 3 reps on the last or two last sets to continue ramping to a heavier weight.

252

it is time to put all of this in another book. I bought two of your earlier books, but this information you are putting out there deserves print copies. You keep doing good work.

253

[quote]Truet wrote:
it is time to put all of this in another book. I bought two of your earlier books, but this information you are putting out there deserves print copies. You keep doing good work. [/quote]

Maybe if I put out enough of these random thoughts I’ll simply cut & paste them into a book to make an easy buck.

Naaaahhh… thanks for the good words, but I have enough on my plate already. And if I put out a new product it needs to be something I’m proud off, not something done rapidly and cheaply to make a quick buck.

254

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
LOW REPS IS RELATIVE

I recently found that the number of ideal reps to perform is dependent on the movement.

I love low reps and feel that they are the superior way to train for maximum growth and strength. But what constitutes low reps vary depending on the movement. In my opinion this depends on the length of the range of motion and the neural implication during the exercise.

For example a barbell shrug has a range of motion of roughly 2-3" and a squat about 2 feet and a half. So it would be foolish to think that 5 reps on one would have a similar training effect as on the other. For the shrug or calf raises 8-10 reps might constitute low reps whereas for squats it might be 2-5.

By the same token a neurologically demanding exercise and a less demanding one might have a different “low reps range” even if they have a similar range of motion.

For example low reps on the leg press might be 6-8 while it is 2-5 for squats.

This is something that, even though is fairly obvious, I only realized recently and have started to use in my own training… sometimes the simpler solutions are the ones you figure out last!

Here is a table showing what constitutes low reps for a movement:

Isolation exercise on a machine: 8-10
Isolation exercise with free-weights or pulley: 6-8
Compound movement on a machine: 4-6
Compound movement with free weights or pulley: 2-4
Complex exercise (e.g. power clean, power snatch and the likes): 1-3

[/quote]

so when ramping while using iso-movements would you still do activation
sets with 3’s or go up a rep or two?

i ask because its harder for me to get in the zone with curling movements unless i go up to 4 reps…

255

[quote]MAF14 wrote:

so when ramping while using iso-movements would you still do activation
sets with 3’s or go up a rep or two?

i ask because its harder for me to get in the zone with curling movements unless i go up to 4 reps…[/quote]

yeah I’ve actually found this myself too. I don’t find that 3 reps, at least for the first few sets, really gets me going. I find 4 or 5 does it a bit better. I tend to drop down to 3 as the weight goes up though.

256

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
STEROIDS, REPS AND WEIGHT

I have received some comments how low reps are not optimal to build muscle and how guys who are relying on low reps and heavy weights and who got big probably were using steroids. Nonsense!

If anything, it’s the opposite!

From my experience working with a myriad of athletes and bodybuilders, natural and enhanced, individuals who are using steroids might respond better to higher reps and lower loads while naturals will grow more from high-force (heavy weight or explosive lifts) training with low reps.

This is a viewpoint shared by Micheal Gundhil, one of the foremost bodybuilding authority in Europe.

First of all steroids tend to increase muscle mass a lot more than tendon strength, in fact many steroids make the tendons more brittle and fragile. So you have a muscle that is much larger and stronger, but with a weaker attachment.

This both increases the risk of injury and eventually decreases the potential for strength gains because of an inhibitory mechanism due to the weaker tendons (the body will want to protect itself for a tendon tear and will reduce force production).

So ‘‘enhanced’’ athletes might progress fast at first from a program based on heavy, low reps lifting, but the risk of injuries will be drastically higher than for a natural trainee.

Not to mention that ‘‘enhanced’’ athletes can tolerate and recover from more training volume: they have a much greater rate of protein synthesis and also replenish muscle glycogen to a greater and faster extent. For that reason, they will thrive on doing a lot more work in the gym.

Finally, the increased rate of protein synthesis and constant anabolic state they are in reduces the need for a super powerful growth stimulus. I’m not saying that steroids are an ‘‘easy way out’’… to get the most out of it you must still train hard; but a lot of big bodies have been built with ‘‘easy’’ workouts when using steroids.

So basically in an “enhanced” athlete you have:

  • increased protein synthesis and glycogen storage + lowered cortisol = better tolerance for volume
  • constant anabolic state = less need for a powerful growth stimulus
  • muscles that get stronger much faster than tendons = greater potential for injury

So this means that an enhanced lifter will respond better to high volume/moderate load training than their natural counterparts.

I’m not saying that low-reps/high force training is not effective for drug-using lifters, it is VERY effective. What I’m saying is that this type of training might be more hazardous for the enhanced and not as necessary to stimulate growth. As such, a steroid-using bodybuilder would be best to use high-force/low reps lifting in short cycles followed by bouts of higher volume training.

A natural lifter doesn’t have these “problems”. While his muscles will still grow stronger faster than the tendons, the difference is not as pronounced (especially considering that some steroids will make the tendons weaker). So the risk of low reps lifting is much lower for a natural trainee, so he can stay on this type of training for longer.

Actually I believe that high volume training will cause more injuries than high-force training in the natural lifter.

Since the natural lifter’s anabolic to catabolic (testosterone, igf-1, GH / cortisol) ratio is not constantly in the positive range, the regulation of training volume is much more important if maximum progress is desired. So a natural lifter who does too much volume can really short-circuit his gains.

And because it is harder for a natural lifter to stimulate growth, he needs a more powerful stimulus… high-force lifting.

This is why I believe that low-reps/high force training, contrary to what some believe, is actually better suited to natural lifters than enhanced ones.[/quote]

I wanna put my grain of sand in this one. I think that’s one of the reasons enhanced bodybuilders “warm up” with higher rep sets, without giving much importance to fatigue. When they reach the heaviest set, they won’t be able to perform optimally so injuries won’t be as probable. I also think that’s why we see many pros training with sets of 12-15 and really explosive.

257

STEROIDS AND TRAINING PART II: TRAINING FREQUENCY

I discussed the training volume, number of reps and training load that is ideal for natural and enhanced lifters in an earlier post. This post will attack the same subject from the angle of training frequency.

When it comes to frequency for enhanced lifters, here is what I believe:

  • TECHNICALLY enhanced lifters are able to train each muscle group more often because of the increased protein synthesis and glycogen storage. In other words the muscles recover faster from training.

  • Still IN THEORY enhanced lifters are able to train more often (as in more days per week) for the same reason as above AND because they artificially blunt the action of cortisol at the receptor level.

HOWEVER in reality they should actually train each muscle group LESS OFTEN.

Why? Because…

  • although their muscles recover faster their tendons do not. This, once again, increase the risk of injuries because as time goes by the muscles will get stronger while the tendons get progressively (and proportionally) weaker.

  • while the increased protein synthesis and glycogen storage will allow the muscle to do more work and recover faster, the nervous system will not recover any faster (in fact some steroids are psychostimulants that might even drain the nervous system even more during a training session). For that reason an enhanced lifter might miss the signs that it’s time to give the body a break: the muscles can still do the job, the lifter is still gaining strength and size… so he assumes that everything is fine. But the risk of chronic fatigue is quite real, he just doesn’t see it.

Basically… an enhanced lifter CAN train more often. But by doing so he is likely to do more harm than good, especially in the long run.

Not to mention that since AAS basically makes the lifter anabolic 24-7, he requires a lesser frequency of stimulation to gain size and strength, so training at a higher frequency is unecessary.

That’s why most pro bodybuilders train most muscle groups once a week. There are obviously exceptions, but most do. This doesn’t mean that because those guys are training like that that it is necessarily the best way for everybody to train. But for them it is: it’s the safest way for them to train and the one that allows them to take advantage of their capacity to tolerate more volume.

A natural lifter will be better off training each muscle group twice per week, sometimes 3 times per week (during specialization phases).

258

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Truet wrote:
it is time to put all of this in another book. I bought two of your earlier books, but this information you are putting out there deserves print copies. You keep doing good work. [/quote]

Maybe if I put out enough of these random thoughts I’ll simply cut & paste them into a book to make an easy buck.

Naaaahhh… thanks for the good words, but I have enough on my plate already. And if I put out a new product it needs to be something I’m proud off, not something done rapidly and cheaply to make a quick buck.[/quote]

Very good character! You and Tim definitely have to be proud of ANACONDA and the whole I, BODYBUILDER project then (even though this is still like elementary or middle school with the current methods/techniques in I, BODYBUILDER).

259

Thibs, gotta say that virgin-sex expert/weight training analogy gave me a laugh. I guess we know what two things are on your mind all day haha

260

Thib, is it fine having 3 upper and 3 lower body sessions in a week, with 2 (rarely 3 on best days) exercises in each ? The exercises done with the ramping method, rarely above max force point. If it’s fine, should I have an off day in the middle or in the end of the week ?