Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about making muscles fail by stretching them under load?
There has been a lot of "long length training/partials" information/research in the past couple of years. A very useful information, you should research more (or ask more specific questions).
Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
311–320 of 371 posts
Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually not, because nothing provides as much satiety as protein. Every calorie you get from protein reduces your cravings for food significantly more then the equivalent carb and fats. You still need to get over the initial insulin normalization though from reducing sugars. Nothing reduces that pain, no matter what you try.
If that were true, then protein powder would be satiating (it's not) and potatoes wouldn't be the most satiating food. This is just more bro-science chained onto bro-science.
I found it needs to be skim milk. Otherwise the fat in regular milk seemed to prevent the meringue from setting up.
Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just got back from the gym and it was surprisingly empty. Actually, more empty than normal. My experience from lifting now for 30+ years and seeing thousands of people lift is it is: 1. Genetics. Everything else is a distant second or third. This was actually something that was widely understood in 90s bodybuilding magazines. Lifting is mostly a display of genetics. That worked when you could sell magazines of gene…
It really is just mostly this, and social media has tricked people into thinking otherwise. I was looking at some photos of myself about 10 years ago. At the time, I had been hitting the gym hard, consistently, and intelligently. I had a huge bench press, squad, and deadlift, and was lifting 4-5 days a week, and managed every facet of my diet. Now, I'm older, have kids, don't sleep as much, and definitely don't make…
Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the intensity of the workout. In fact you want the maximum intensity with minimum volume to have less wear and tear and more recovery while maximizing the growth stimulus. First intensity. Then recovery. These two dictate the volume. If volume exceeds recovery injury and burnout will follow.
> Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the intensity of the workout Not true at all, its well documented that volume is the biggest predictor of progress. there is obviously an intensity floor, and when its not feasible logistically to stack on more volume, intensity is your other knob. But to say volume doesnt matter is an odd claim, maybe i misunderstand. > you want the maximum intensity wit…
It can work.. the problem is that if you do too little you get no result, if you do too much you burn out. So you have to manage both volume and intensity so that you have a progressive overload. This is difficult.
Easier way is to just ignore the volume in the first place, train as hard as you can (so go to failure, or very close), for maximal effort, i.e. increase the intensity then RECOVER then go back to the gym when you're no longer sore.
This is much easier routine to follow and it will produce development assuming other factors (quality of sleep and nutrition) are in check.
So therefore a shortcut summary is to forget about the volume, focus on the intensity and then make volume follow your capacity to recover. Avoid injuries and burnout while precipitating growth.
Using the bench press example again, in a volume program I might do
6 sets of 6 reps for a total of 36 reps. Since I'm doing so much volume it's clear that my first 5 sets will not be challenging because with this amount of sets I HAVE to save my energy for 6 sets. MAYBE the last rep or two in the last set will be what will start challenging me. So I'd say that with this volume workout you get 2 reps out of 36 that are "progressive". That's 5% and 95% of my work is just junk that produces only wear and tear.
In high intensity method I continue with drop sets after I fail. So.. let's say I do my initial set, 8 reps until I fail, I drop weights and do 3 more reps until I fail, I drop the weights and do 2 more reps. And then I'm done and that's the workout. My total reps are 13 but there are at least 5 reps that are in the zone that challenges me. That's 5/13 for 38%.
Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
#315Why is this article showing up on New Year's Day like the flock of newbie gym customers attracted to the gym only to quit 30 days from now? Every year without fail. Let's ignore this article for a moment. Overall factors that REALLY matter building muscle: 1. Consistency - Working out each muscle group at least once a week....every week. 2. Diet - Making sure you are consuming enough protein in your diet, approximate…
I just got back from the gym and it was surprisingly empty. Actually, more empty than normal. My experience from lifting now for 30+ years and seeing thousands of people lift is it is: 1. Genetics. Everything else is a distant second or third. This was actually something that was widely understood in 90s bodybuilding magazines. Lifting is mostly a display of genetics. That worked when you could sell magazines of gene…
Yes, once you get to the level of being able to compete with others, genetic factors will determine who will do better. This is true in any sport.
But that has no bearing on your average person deciding to go to the gym or not. Just about everyone will experience massive benefits from going to the gym regularly. Most don't have the capacity to compete, but that's not what 99% of people care about.
So the #1 factor is not, in fact, genetics, but doing the thing consistently.
As such, this is irresponsible nonsense to be spreading around.
Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
#316Not sure why it gets attention here. The "finding" is the long standing assumption as it is, absolutely nothing new discovered here. It could be notable if it was of some particularly high quality, but here it is 20 untrained individuals doing some dubious exercise regime for 10 weeks and finding out that on average one dubious exercise pattern wasn't particularly better than the other, and overall exercising seemed…
Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
#317Yep, lots of different ways to get jacked. That means if you couldn't care less about strength, you can do pretty much any decent exercise that targets the muscle(s) you want to grow in a very wide rep range. Most people want a combination of both size and strength, so you can just do some sets of 5-10 if you aren't already. If you want to have a strong deadlift or squat or whatever, you should train that movement. N…
I don't think this is true. I've been following a fairly standard progression on several of the standard exercises over the last year and half. I've seen steady progression on leg press, which is a strongly stabilized and isolated exercise. I saw the same rate of initial progression on squats but then it dropped off and I haven't really seen any progression for six months. The issue is stability. I have to provide th…
Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you consider gains? Consider that this paper looked specifically at hypertrophy (size), not strength. While they correlate, training for one or the other can be very different.. "Traditionally" the rep ranges recommended for hypertrophy has typically been significantly higher than the ranges recommended for strength, but the number of sets recommended is often also significantly higher, often translating to s…
> Consider that this paper looked specifically at hypertrophy (size), not strength. I'm not sure where this idea came from that people do one or the other. Except for the advanced lifter, both will happen from either program. Show me a person who is really big and they are likely pretty strong as well (see Ronnie Coleman). Same with the other direction.
I know I’ve definitely seen the difference training with a personal trainer telling her I want to train for aesthetics vs strength and vice versa.
There is a strong correlation but it’s definitely not 1.
Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
#319Not sure why it gets attention here. The "finding" is the long standing assumption as it is, absolutely nothing new discovered here. It could be notable if it was of some particularly high quality, but here it is 20 untrained individuals doing some dubious exercise regime for 10 weeks and finding out that on average one dubious exercise pattern wasn't particularly better than the other, and overall exercising seemed…
> although inter-personal coefficient of variation is up to 28.3%
Why does that matter? Isn't the entire point of this study's design to eliminate the impact of the inherent variability between test subjects?
Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the risk of injury. At very low reps and high weight, particularly for highly coordinated motions (squats, dips, pull-ups, Pulver press back-extensions), there's a much higher chance for injury due to insufficient support at one or more positions within the entire range of concentric and eccentric efforts by all activated muscles. We all have, at the very least, minor intrinsic asymmetries that need expl…
Asymmetry is normal and you cannot address it (outside of repeatability of movement, aiming for no form degradation during high load). As long as your movement does not degrade horribly, asymmetry is fine. Even before strength training, your one arm is dominant, more precise. But this has an effect on your leg as well. Doing unilateral work will never change that asymmetry. As you get stronger, due to drastically dif…