I ask you a direct question in that topic.
20 rep sets are great as long as they’re taken to failure, they will provide the same amount of effective reps as 9-12. They’re only slightly less efficient for the big compound movements because a 20RM squat will really gas you out.
2 Likes
Spot on
1 Like
It is always nice to know who is offering what is presented as fact. Before the internet it was usually offered.
3 Likes
Sure many bodybuilders and athletes used a wide range of rep schemes, but this is about what is efficient for those who only want to focus on one goal.
For example, a 4RM is terrible for growth because you’re getting a lot less effective reps than a 12RM. You would need to do more sets of 4RM to reach the same amount of effective reps.
1 Like
Exactly… maybe its a old school mentality on my part. But I want to see the source of the advice. Its too easy to see guys just to parrot info online with out the results to show for it.
Its like when you have someone online preaching on how to get massive and finding out after they are maybe 150lbs soaking wet at 6 foot.
The minimalism I’m talking about is regarding lack of exercise variation, not excess volume. Starting strength for example has been horrible for building aesthetic physiques, going as far as producing T-Rex physiques instead due to lack of direct arm work, lack of rear and side delt isolation, etc.
2 Likes
Who was the first guy to say “bodybuilding is about getting stronger in the 8-12 rep range.”?
Was it Dante? Or was it somebody years before that even?
I believe that has been intuitively obvious years before I ever lifted a weight (1968).
1 Like
Starting strength for example has been horrible for building aesthetic physiques, going as far as producing T-Rex physiques instead due to lack of direct arm work, lack of rear and side delt isolation, etc.
It’s only a 12 week program: it’s not really going to build any kind of physique.
2 Likes
Hes not going to share any of that because he has nothing to show.
1 Like
In these times it can be difficult to talk about a method when other methods also exist.
2 Likes
But the tangible progress in numbers can be addictive!
2 Likes
I said this in my log the other day and people liked it, so I’ll say it again for those who aren’t following along.
I think anyone going through the level of detail that OP is going through trying to describe optimal, is not actually training optimally.
6 Likes
Bruce Randall and Hugh Cassidy gave us all the tools we needed.
Have we ever even defined optimal?
No…
You have your basic concept that works. But how someone implement them to get results or for them to be more “ optimal” in allot of cases are dependent on individual factors and in some cases personal preference.
Or at least thats my opinion
2 Likes
Yes, I totally agree. Not “best,” but best considering individual factors. Or “best given constraints” to sound fancy.
2 Likes
Consistency and intensity over time.
1 Like
Intensity as a feeling or a number?