PDA

View Full Version : Reps per set for optimal growth


lylemcd
02-06-2009, 09:22 AM
Article on the main site (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/reps-per-set-for-optimal-growth.html)

Sugar
02-07-2009, 07:36 AM
Excelent article.

When you say that with sets of more than 8 reps the high threshold motor units don't get recruited until the last part of the set, are you asuming an explosive concrentic?. Is it possible to recruit "all" muscle fibers with an intensity of 70% if you produce the maximun force you can (lifting the fastest)?.

lylemcd
02-07-2009, 07:38 AM
Maybe.

AllGenetix
02-07-2009, 11:13 AM
Waterbury said so, LIFT FAST - GET MEGA HUGE!!!

BWTrainer
02-07-2009, 11:59 AM
Waterbury said so, LIFT FAST - GET MEGA HUGE!!!
My arms went from 14" to 19" by doing 100 reps per day of super fast bicep curls.

mpipes
02-07-2009, 01:49 PM
My arms went from 14" to 19" by doing 100 reps per day of super fast bicep curls.

Well my elbows have 270 degree ROM from doing it like that.

Blade
02-08-2009, 05:17 AM
More and more research points to both fiber recruitment and rate coding are important when subjecting the muscle to tension overload, so working closer to - but not actually hitting failure - is recommended. Once rep speed drops, terminate the set. You may maintain a high level of MVC/rate coding by limiting rest periods and doing shorter sets on subsequent sets after that first "activation" set.

There is both a minimum threshold volume, and optimal range (obviously), but more importantly a maximum volume where several events take place which will inhibit an optimal growth response and prolong recovery.

BWTrainer
02-08-2009, 07:36 AM
More and more research points to both fiber recruitment and rate coding are important when subjecting the muscle to tension overload, so working closer to - but not actually hitting failure - is recommended. Once rep speed drops, terminate the set.
Could you point me in the direction of any of this research? Thanks

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 07:36 AM
I would note that I don't happen to agree with Blade on this particular issue, at least not wrt: hypertrophy.

Espi
02-08-2009, 07:48 AM
Color me confused too.

Is 'rate coding' similar to 'neurological' strength? Is it true this can be very different for many people?

This article came right on time for me as I've been trying to get away from the 'go-by-number of reps and/or total wt' only mindset and trying to increase repset length by increasing tempo on the positive contraction and decreasing on the eccentric part.
What's more, I've even added negatives by doing self-assisted 1-arm latpull downs.

From all the observations sofar, bodybuilders seem to thrive on negatives and invariably go beyond failure. Admittedly they are nearly all juiced and on 'bro-tarded' splits, but even naturals seem to do well on Doggcrapp training routines.

Not going to failure but increase # of sets (Max Stim?) is a very good way to speed up recovery and gain strength more consistently, even in the face of a deficit...but is it really the best strategy for optimal muscle gains (when bulking)?

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 07:49 AM
Rate coding is simply the rate at which neural signals are sent from the brain to the muscles. As rate coding increases (up to a point), force output goes up.

What is confusing?

And I'm not talking about forced negatives or anything of that sort, that's jsut a non-sequitur.

But, IMO and IME, rep speed will slow long before you're very close to failure. If you stopped every set at that point, you wouldn't get as much fatigue. UNLESS you did a bunch of mini sets with short rest. Which is what Blade does with Myo-Reps. But it's not the only way to train for growth.

Espi
02-08-2009, 07:55 AM
What is confusing?

This:
More and more research points to both fiber recruitment and rate coding are important when subjecting the muscle to tension overload, so working closer to - but not actually hitting failure - is recommended. Once rep speed drops, terminate the set. You may maintain a high level of MVC/rate coding by limiting rest periods and doing shorter sets on subsequent sets after that first "activation" set.

There is both a minimum threshold volume, and optimal range (obviously), but more importantly a maximum volume where several events take place which will inhibit an optimal growth response and prolong recovery.


And I'm not talking about forced negatives or anything of that sort, that's jsut a non-sequitur.

But, IMO and IME, rep speed will slow long before you're very close to failure. If you stopped every set at that point, you wouldn't get as much fatigue. UNLESS you did a bunch of mini sets with short rest. Which is what Blade does with Myo-Reps. But it's not the only way to train for growth.

It's sometimes hard to choose between the methods that are used by (juiced) bodybuilders and their followers , which invariably means forced negatives etc. etc. and the more science-oriented method, where followers even follow the opposite approach and do singles up to triples with submaximal weights. That approach just seems weird if you want hypertrophy. Unless rest time is kept to a minimum (like with Myo-Reps and Max-Stim?)

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 08:26 AM
Look, nobody gives a I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post. what juiced bodybuilders do. Stop bringing them up, it's an irrelevant non-sequitur and strawman as NOBODY but you is talking about it.

Blade works with naturals, so have I. His and my disagreements are always minor points and this is no difference. His way works and so does mine. And both have their application depending on the situation (e.g. look at the article on various training philsophies on the main site).

I don't do forced negateives with people. Ever.

I rarely take people to positive failure. Rarely is NOT the same as ever. There are times I think going to failure is absolutely the thing to do. And most of the time it's not. But it just depends.

I do not agree that the set should be stopped when bar speed slows for the reason I already stated.

Unnerstand or are you still confused?

steviekm3
02-08-2009, 09:16 AM
Does the body part matter for how many reps ? Could different muscles have varying amounts of fast/slow twitch fiber and this could make the number of reps be different.

For example you often hear people doing more reps for calves for example.

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 09:29 AM
That idea has been suggested, I've never seen anything to support it

Most people do higher reps for calves per set b/c the range of motion is short and most people bounce and don't use their muscle anyhow.

They have to do '30 reps' because each rep is done with poor quality. This is why skinny guys can bounce the stack all day long; they aren't actually using any muscular effort.

If you do calves the way I recommend (explosive concentric, slow eccentric, 2-4 second pause at the bottom), you can work them in teh same rep ranges as everything else.

And even if different muscles are different fiber types, here's the reality: Type I fibers don't grow much. Targeting them is a losing proposition. Focus on the Type II fibers which actually have growth potential. That means using the parameters laid out in this article.

Blade
02-08-2009, 11:07 AM
Ok, let me modify/clarify that to: once rep speed drops significantly, not at the first sign of fatigue (the very first rep will be slow when you're lifting heavy loads).

There must be a balance between MVC/rate coding and fatigue to be able to get sufficient volume in, don't just go for fatigue for the sake of it, so yeah - Lyle and I may disagree on that, but of course it's a matter of degree and application as he mentions.

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 11:15 AM
Ok, let me modify/clarify that to: once rep speed drops significantly, not at the first sign of fatigue (the very first rep will be slow when you're lifting heavy loads).


Amazing how a single word can change the disagreement completely.

I don't like people to grind either, invariably it causes too much fatigue and compromises how many sets they can get. This is the fallacy of both the HIT and the HG philosophy.


There must be a balance between MVC/rate coding and fatigue to be able to get sufficient volume in, don't just go for fatigue for the sake of it, so yeah - Lyle and I may disagree on that, but of course it's a matter of degree and application as he mentions.

as with the other thread, there is no disagreement now that you've qualified what you meant (e.g. actually written what you meant specifically instead of with easily confusing vagaries).

I don't take people to slow grindy failure EVER unless it's the final set of the workout (or it's performance related and they need to learn how to grind to make a lift). It accomplishes nothing but excessive neural fatigue IMO without signficantly increasing hte growht stimulus (and it will hurt the growth stimulus if it compromises total volume).

That is a far different statement tahn 'stop when the bar slows'. Because the rider 'significantly' changes Blade's original statement SIGNIFICANTLY.

Get it, do you see what I did there?

But for hypetrophy purposes, never. Ok, rarely enough to be never at this point. I cna't think of an exception to that right now

Blade
02-08-2009, 11:28 AM
Ok, I guess I have to start making qualifiers into every post from now on then. I was making a quick post and didn't foresee any problems with that statement.

The problem is that rep speed is both psychological (some slow down at first sign of fatigue) and subjective (what is "significantly" ?), but alright - let's say a 10-15% drop in rep speed.

Landon Evans did some experiments with a Tendo unit which seemed to correlate well with that number when he tried Myo-reps and an RPE scale.

Wernbom saw huge spikes on EMG, similar to 85%+ loads using lighter loads (I believe it was about 15-20RM) and a rest-pause/Myo-rep scheme. Some other data is showing rate coding being inhibited once you push into failure land.

PeyZS
02-08-2009, 11:34 AM
Ok, let me modify/clarify that to: once rep speed drops significantly, not at the first sign of fatigue (the very first rep will be slow when you're lifting heavy loads).

There must be a balance between MVC/rate coding and fatigue to be able to get sufficient volume in, don't just go for fatigue for the sake of it, so yeah - Lyle and I may disagree on that, but of course it's a matter of degree and application as he mentions.

For my own confused application of myo reps, I terminate the activation set when I feel failure 1-2 reps away

I tend to err on the side of getting to close to failure rather than stay too far away from it, as I've mentioned before I suck at adding reps vs adding weight, and the psychological thing has sabotaged me many a time (in other words as you guys pointed out, rep speed will sometimes slow for me way before I'm anywhere near 1) failure 2) inability to add more weight and complete a set within the same rep range

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 11:34 AM
It's all up to you, do you want to actually write what you mean about the topic, or sound like Chad Waterbury and get your panties all twisted when I disagree with WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID?

Because, see, I can't read minds and you're not my girlfriend, so if you say X I'm going to respond to literally what X was. If that's not what you mean, that's not my problem: either write more clearly or stop getting annoyed when I respond to what you literally said.

And if you then qualify your statement with something that changes SIGNIFICANTLY what you actually wrote, then you've just wasted both of our times.

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 11:35 AM
For my own confused application of myo reps, I terminate the activation set when I feel failure 1-2 reps away


And this is about where I stop folks doing multiple sets. IF I want repeat sets of 8, the first set will stop when I think they are about 1-2 reps from failure.

How do I know when they are this close? By being VERY good at what I do. I watch for things like changing rep speed and overall effort an I'm usually very close to knowing where someone is relative to failure in a set. And unless I have a very specific and very good reasons to take them beyond that point, I'll tell them to stop and save it for the next set.

Blade
02-08-2009, 11:50 AM
Ok but I did mean "noticeably" instead of "significantly"...ffs it's a subjective measure, hence why I use RPE scales. I shouldn't have to write a whole damn article qualifying every word I say whenever I post on your forum so it won't end up in this waste of time. I guess I'm assuming that you have read my earlier posts and/or articles, so I don't have to repeat myself every time I'm making a quick comment in a thread. Context.

Now I know why you've adopted the writing style in your latest books of overexplaining everything down to the very tiniest detail, guess I should learn from that.

Comparing me to Waterbury is quite an insult, given what you've said about him earlier. I don't think I fit that description at all, and honestly you're out of line here.

You're very good at what you do, but you're also very good at misrepresenting what other people say sometimes, re: the eat-when-hungry argument.

PeyZS
02-08-2009, 11:59 AM
Blade I've been meaning to ask you this...

IMU in the Wenborn study it was found that a growth stimulus could be achieved with a 15 rep set at 50% 1RM *after* the muscle group had already been activated and stimulated with a heavier load. this is not a function of fatigue as a hypertrophic stimulus, but rather an already activated/recruited set of muscle fibers being more sensitive to growth

so is this why when loads get heavy, you recommend shifting the weight down only a few lbs and doing another rest pause series after R.P. 2 or 10 reps (whatever self reg method we're using), instead of dropping down to a genuinely light weight (50% RM) and cranking out a fatigue set?

e.g. its not fatigue were after, so using the heaviest possible weight and still being able to crank out another rest pause series will give a greater growth response?

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 12:13 PM
Ok but I did mean "noticeably" instead of "significantly"...ffs it's a subjective measure, hence why I use RPE scales. I shouldn't have to write a whole damn article qualifying every word I say whenever I post on your forum so it won't end up in this waste of time. I guess I'm assuming that you have read my earlier posts and/or articles, so I don't have to repeat myself every time I'm making a quick comment in a thread. Context.

Now I know why you've adopted the writing style in your latest books of overexplaining everything down to the very tiniest detail, guess I should learn from that.

Comparing me to Waterbury is quite an insult, given what you've said about him earlier. I don't think I fit that description at all, and honestly you're out of line here.

You're very good at what you do, but you're also very good at misrepresenting what other people say sometimes, re: the eat-when-hungry argument.

You wrote and I quote
"Once rep speed drops, terminate the set"

Does that leave any room for interpretation or does it mean exactly what it says? It's the latter as everyone will agree.

And I took issue with it. Becasue that statement, which is identical to what Waterbury has written is not only wrong but completely moronic.

And THEN you added a word that completely changes what that sentence means. And now there is no disagreement.

But instead of letting it go, you're acting like a spoiled little brat, trying to make it about me. like you did in the other thread wehere there was NO DISAGREEMENT AT ALL. Yet you insisted on making there be one.

Because what I said was exactly clear. And what you thought I said was completely different.

See the problem here, Blade. It's all yours. I wrote what I meant, I mean what I write, I take what others write at face value; if they change it then I'll address what they chaned it too.

Take responsibility for yoru actions instead of trying to shift the blame like the rest of the weak minded on the internet, friend, it will keep you from looking so foolish.

Basically, you had two options after changing what you wrote

1. Say "Ok, I msi wrote, this is what I meant" Andhten I go "Yup, no disagreement"
2. Do what you're doing now which is acting like a child who got caught and is trying to both make excuses (this is what I meant) and shift the blame (by attacking me).

#2 is bullI need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post., buddy. Man up and just admit that you misspoke. YOur'e pulling a Carl/Clubeelite from the glute bridge thread right now. Plain and simple.

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 12:23 PM
Blade I've been meaning to ask you this...

IMU in the Wenborn study it was found that a growth stimulus could be achieved with a 15 rep set at 50% 1RM *after* the muscle group had already been activated and stimulated with a heavier load. this is not a function of fatigue as a hypertrophic stimulus, but rather an already activated/recruited set of muscle fibers being more sensitive to growth

so is this why when loads get heavy, you recommend shifting the weight down only a few lbs and doing another rest pause series after R.P. 2 or 10 reps (whatever self reg method we're using), instead of dropping down to a genuinely light weight (50% RM) and cranking out a fatigue set?

e.g. its not fatigue were after, so using the heaviest possible weight and still being able to crank out another rest pause series will give a greater growth response?

I think blade is trying to stay on the higher end of the tension vs. fatigue curve but I should probably let him explain to avoid misrepresenting what he means.

If you drop poundage a bit, you get more of a tension overload and yu can accumulate fatigue with subsequent drops. drop it way down and crank out reps, and it's more fatigue oriented.

That is if you graphed average tension for his myo rep drop set vs what you're describing, you get the same total volume/fatigue/metabolic work (as a function of all of the mini sets) but with a higher average tension (eitheras load on bar/%MVIC or what have you). I'd expect his approach to generate better growth.

That said, I have done things like

4-6 rep set near failure -> short rest -> set of 10-12 reps with a lighter weight with seemingly good sucess. Probably work better with no rest at all but that hurts to much. :)

PeyZS
02-08-2009, 12:35 PM
I've tried to keep in mind the balance in your generic bulk between fatigue and tension in this context

so when working with heavy loads what I'll do sometimes is max stim/myo rep up at about 15 (working with a 5 RM)

rest 45 secs or so

then belt out either:

1) a set of 10-12 with ~12 RM

which seems to be cool because say you did this for flat bench and then incline bench, you'd get 50 reps total (magic number ding ding ding), and a split of 30 heavy I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post. reps plus 20 more fatigue oriented reps (*kinda* like your bulk would produce practiced normally)

2) another rest pause set alla blade but with ~7 RM

so I guess my post was motivated by trying to assess the difference between the two approaches, but you said it, #2 stays more on the tension side of things (though you could accumulate fatigue by doing multiple drops), #1 on the fatigue side of things...

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 12:44 PM
As stated, both clearly work.

Which is 'better' depends on the person and the context.

With someone willing to suffer and who will keep the quality of the reps good, myo-reps/DC style training is more time efficient, you get the same growth stimulus for about half the total volume.

For someone without that pain tolerance, or who's form goes down the toilet under conditions of fatigue (which is a lot more people than most realize), I'd be more inclined to use straight sets. Even that can depend on things like exercise choice. form shouldn't fall apart on the hammer incline chest press and you can take anybody through a proper myo-rep/DC drop set without problems. Barbell back squat on the other hand.....

When I was training Sarah with some specific growth goals,we often did a mix of training types. Straight sets and higher volume for some stuff, myo-rep or drop sets for others. Just depending on what kind of mood I was in, what her energy levels were, how much time we had and that kind of thing.

I personally feel that rank beginners and even some intermediates (depending on the specific person) are probably better with straight sets, most haven't learned how to work hard enough to make myo rep type stuff work as well as it should.

They won't get the right stimulus because they will quit too soon (or pace themselves to survive the set). Just so Blade doesn't get his panties twisted again, I'm not saying this has anything to do with the method; this is jsut a statement of fact about many trainees and hw people find amazing ways to screw things up.

In that case, I'd use straight sets and gradually get them used to working closer to their limts to teach them how to generate that kind of intensity. That is a learned skill like any other. Beginners almost never have it, intermediates, dpeending on how they were trained, may or may not have it.

This has the added advantage of teaching people where failure actually is, becuase recommendations of 1-2 reps short of failure ONLY make sense if someone knows what their limits are, and most people think their limits are a lot lower than they actually are.

Bascially, most people stop on a set long before they are anywhere close to failure. Because it hurts, because it's uncomfortable, or whatever. If you stand in front of them and keep them doing reps until the bar literally wo'nt move no matter how much they pull or push on it, that is a teaching tool. I don't do it often but it has its role. And folks often realize that what they thought was true failure wasn't even close.

Once they learn that, suggestions of 'train 1-2 reps short of failure' work better.

Fueled
02-08-2009, 12:47 PM
Off topic, but who's Sarah - wife, daughter, client?

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 12:48 PM
SO/my primary/only hands on trainee right now.

AllGenetix
02-08-2009, 03:35 PM
SO/my primary/only hands on trainee right now.

hands on eh?

taking on any non-hands-on clients? lol

IMO, all this is just mental wanking. it will all work. whichever is "better" is going to depend on too many individual factors, and is all under the assumption that enough calories are being consumed for growth.

stick to something that works and do it to the best of your ability instead of doing a lot of random things half I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post..

jc
02-08-2009, 03:47 PM
this reminds me of the thread Joe.Muscle started about retarded athletes

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 04:09 PM
hands on eh?

taking on any non-hands-on clients? lol

IMO, all this is just mental wanking. it will all work. whichever is "better" is going to depend on too many individual factors, and is all under the assumption that enough calories are being consumed for growth.

stick to something that works and do it to the best of your ability instead of doing a lot of random things half I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post..

ees not vanking, vee must find ze optimum approach

or not.

AS I explicitly stated above, both approaches clearly work (and they do so for the reasons I put in that other thread, tehy apply a set of basic principles in an internaly consistent way).

Just different paths to the same damn goal at the end of the day and which is 'better' simply depends on the context and the person.

Blade
02-08-2009, 04:10 PM
Ok, I said:

working closer to - but not actually hitting failure - is recommended. Once rep speed drops, terminate the set.

...so I thought that it was implicit in my statement what I was talking about.

Then I said "ok let me clarify that" - because I realized that "working closer to, but not hitting failure" wasn't a sufficient qualifier for the rep speed issue.

So yeah, I miswrote, underwrote whatever you want to call it - I admit it.

So we agree on that. I don't agree with fatigue being necessary, but failure and fatigue isn't always the same thing now, is it?

About the tension and time under load questions, it is very much what Lyle said in the article. When you're at 80-85% loads you get high MVC, and if you do reps until you hit...let's say - I dunno

- a SIGNIFICANT drop in rep speed
- or maybe working close to but not actually hitting failure
- or maybe a 9 on an RPE scale of 1-10

all implying basically a subjective measure of the same thing.

You're subjecting all MUs and fibers to this high tension stimulus.

This is the most important factor, within the context of a load progression of course.

Fatigue-management techniques, of which Myo-reps is one way of doing it, you can maintain this high MVC/rate coding while getting in a sufficient minimum volume - which we've established is probably around 30-40 reps, or 40-60 when doing straight sets (and less load IMO).

The practical concern here is whether you can actually recover from this work and load in order to do the same or heavier weights 3-4 days later.

This is where the question in my mind still is to what extent and degree we can make up for it by reducing loads in either a dropset fashion or a heavy set followed by a lighter set with a different, overlapping exercise/isolation exercise.

Does the potentiating effect of the first heavy lifts make the lighter set just as effective? How light can we go before we see a drop in efficiency? A 10-20% load reduction from a 80-85% load is still 65-75% of 1RM and *should* be doing the job, and in terms of maintaining total work you might be able to compensate by simply doing 5 more reps or something. Wernbom's work on ischemic/low-load training seems to be working fine even in advanced trainees, and I think we can pretty much agree that its effect is about the MVC/rate coding variable.

I just don't know yet, but clearly it's better to compromise a theoretical 95% growth response (cuz perfect is hard) into a theoretical 80-90% growth response in order to reduce the risk of joint/connective tissue/CNS overload and be able to come back stronger for your next workout.

Let's hope more studies will elucidate this better, but for now you will get far with what Lyle said in the article and to blow my own trumpet, some experimentation with Myo-reps and RPE scales. Read Mike Tuchscherer's RTS manual for his implementation in a powerlifting setup.

lylemcd
02-08-2009, 04:17 PM
Blade

This is my last post about this, this is completely pointless and we have far more productive things to argue about. Go address Pezy's question to you, or make sure my interpretation is correct.

I quoted EXACTLY which bit of your statement I was responding to which was:

"Once rep speed drops, terminate the set." And I've pointed this out several times now. So why are you bolding the part of your comment that isn't relevant?

Because the statement 'once rep speed drops, terminate the set is wrong'. And you know it. And I took issue with it. And then you amended it with the word 'significantly' and I said there was no longer a disagreement. And then you proceeded to get all pissy with me b/c you weren't happy that I didn't magically inherently know what you MEANT.

And you simply won't let it go. And I am right now.

I will not respond further regarding this non-disagreement.

Lyle

PeyZS
02-08-2009, 04:19 PM
hands on eh?

taking on any non-hands-on clients? lol

IMO, all this is just mental wanking. it will all work. whichever is "better" is going to depend on too many individual factors, and is all under the assumption that enough calories are being consumed for growth.

stick to something that works and do it to the best of your ability instead of doing a lot of random things half I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post..

do us a favor and next time you preach to the choir with this BS remind us how you train your calves...

AllGenetix
02-08-2009, 05:00 PM
do us a favor and next time you preach to the choir with this BS remind us how you train your calves...
lol i have never done calf raises since my accident when i was a tweenager

PeyZS
02-08-2009, 08:20 PM
lol i have never done calf raises since my accident when i was a tweenager

that was kind of the joke... you don't do them :)

AllGenetix
02-08-2009, 08:26 PM
i know, but i really did have an accident when i was like 14. very traumatic smith machine story.

PeyZS
02-08-2009, 08:27 PM
oh I didn't realize i thought you meant the blow to the head thing

what happened on the smith!?

AllGenetix
02-08-2009, 09:15 PM
doing like 315lb calf raises like a dumbass on a reebok step bench wiithout the safeties on the smith machine. the step slid out from under me and down i went.

thats back when i took NO xplode and did bench and curls for the girls.

PeyZS
02-08-2009, 09:29 PM
holy I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post. dude thats scary

you must have snapped something real bad

AllGenetix
02-08-2009, 09:34 PM
not really, got luck fell on my I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post., made loud noises, strained neck, thats about it.

at least it wasnt like when i took a line drive off the face and it wrecked my pituitary, lol

Sugar
02-10-2009, 07:14 AM
When speed of the set drops, is not necessarily because some muscle fibers have dropped, but can be a rate coding issue?.

lylemcd
02-10-2009, 07:33 AM
When speed of the set drops, is not necessarily because some muscle fibers have dropped, but can be a rate coding issue?.

It's just fatigue. And that can be occurring at one of about 7 different places along the chain from brain to muscle. You can't draw any conclusions about anything just because rep speed is slowing down. It could be central drive, it could be something at the neuromuscular junction, it could be metabolic (e.g. acidosis impairing contraction), it could be a bunch of different things. If it's a compound exercise, it could simply be that one muscle involved in the movement is fatiguing before the rest (which would likely show as a drop in speed at a specific part of the movement. And you can sometimes make inferences about the locus of fatigue based on things like the rep count and time of the set and waht that implies about the energy system and nervous system functioning involved. So I would surmise a difeernt locus of fatigue for a near max triple than a near max set of 15 (one would be predominantly neural, the other metabolic).

All you can say is that fatigue is occurring and it's slowing down.

And in Blade's model, since the goal is to avoid quasi-isometric grinding (which I agree with completely under most circumstances), that's when you terminate the set, when it slows beyond a certain point.

But all you really know is that fatigue of some sort is occurring. You can't say exactly what's causing it under most conditions.

Which is a big part of why Waterbury's crap on T-nation is just that, crap: he's arguing that when rep speed slows to any degree you get less fiber recruitment. Which is exactly backwards. But Waterbury has NEVER known a thing about what he was talking about.

Blade
02-10-2009, 04:55 PM
All good points, hence why an RPE scale is a useful measure when using heavier loads in the 1-5 and 6-10 rep range, getting in volume in the 8-9 RPE range (leaving 1 rep in the tank) most of the time and only occasionally (preferably planned) hitting an RPE 10 (max lift, failure).

At lighter loads, 12-15, 15-20 and up to 20-25 reps (these are the rep ranges I normally use), hitting failure is more metabolic than neural and many of you could very well grind out a few final reps beyond a subjective failure point if someone gave you a million dollars.

This is the "problem" as Lyle mentioned earlier, a beginner-moderately advanced doesn't always know where the failure point is, so it becomes very subjective. Occasionally hitting failure would "teach" them that...with a spotter watching, of course. Using a combination of rep speed and effort rating to determine where to rerack the bar will work well with a little experience, and if you didn't get 100% MVC/rate coding in the first set you will most likely get closer to that point on subsequent sets due to accumulating fatigue, anyway.

lylemcd
02-11-2009, 08:18 AM
Just to add to what Blade said, my point about failure training being useful is more to do with un-coached trainees. I can tell, as can he, from rep speed and effort, about where someone is relative to failure. But most trainees tend to be bad at this themselves IME, unless they have spent some time going to completely failure.

As mentioned, pushing past discomfort is a learned skill that only comes with time and most peple think that their limits are oh so much lower than they actuallyare.

Sugar
02-11-2009, 08:33 AM
As reps go up, failure is more far away that most usually think. Sets of 20 reps squat hurts, and usually you reach 15 reps and think "damn, it was though, I'm one rep before hitting failure" but, as blade says, if someone gave you a million euros (dollar is I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post. now), you'd perform 3-4 reps more.

With heavy weights isn't so hard, and it's easiest to achieve a real failure.

The problem with failure early in the workout is that performance drop significantly, and you have to drop weigth/reps a lot. Stopping the set 1-2 reps before, and you have a similar stimulus (because you already recruited the FT fibers) and you'll can move more weigth in subsecuent sets.

steviekm3
02-15-2009, 06:18 AM
Is the reason we don't want to go to failure because of
a) failure causes too much fatigue so we can't get enough good reps in.
b) failure taxes the CNS too much and the CNS takes a while to recover ( takes longer to recover than muscles do )
c) some other reason

I have heard both a) and b).

lylemcd
02-15-2009, 07:52 AM
Failure limit volume. If you go to failure on your first set, most likely you wo'nt be able to do jack squat in later sets. This is not good. IF you go to failure, save it for the last set of an exercise.

Even thre, going to total failure has a tendency to
a. really increase fatigue
b. not improve the training stimulus much

So you hear all the HIT/grind to failure guys talking about how they can't train more than once every 8 days b/c they take every set to failure. But if they stopped a rep short, not only wouldn't they generate massive amounts of fatigue, they would be able to train again 3-4 days later. Growth ensues.

Put differently, say you are working with an 8 rep max weight.
Compare a set of 7 reps vs 8 to failure.

That single rep will generate disproportionate fatigue and require much longer recovery periods, but without generating significantly more of a training stimulus.

steviekm3
02-15-2009, 08:58 AM
Failure limit volume. If you go to failure on your first set, most likely you wo'nt be able to do jack squat in later sets. This is not good. IF you go to failure, save it for the last set of an exercise.


Thanks Lyle, one other thing is the myo-reps program doing the 40-60 reps per muscle group ? It seems that the myo-rep guys are going for less total reps. Just 1 set of 10 pause 3 pause 3 pause 2 pause 2 = 20 total reps.

It appears the myo-reps and doggcrapp style is concerned about over-doing volume. They want to be able to retrain the muscle again in as little as 48 hours. Is this why they keep number of reps down ?

lylemcd
02-15-2009, 09:19 AM
Myo-reps/DC use about half that volume based on the premise that each rep is 'higher quality' (b/c of the short rest peroids). Both approaches work. Blade's teh one to best explain his approach though

As well, Dc volume is higher than it looks bc of the extended extreme stretches. It's bsaically a quasi isometric eccentric done for about 1 minutes, that contributes to the overall training stress.

Inque
02-15-2009, 09:22 AM
Thanks Lyle, one other thing is the myo-reps program doing the 40-60 reps per muscle group ? It seems that the myo-rep guys are going for less total reps. Just 1 set of 10 pause 3 pause 3 pause 2 pause 2 = 20 total reps.

It appears the myo-reps and doggcrapp style is concerned about over-doing volume. They want to be able to retrain the muscle again in as little as 48 hours. Is this why they keep number of reps down ?

40-60 reps per muscle group per week

Not per workout

lylemcd
02-15-2009, 09:23 AM
40-60 reps per muscle group per week

Not per workout

Nope, per workout. Twice per week.

Pikku
02-15-2009, 03:48 PM
Thanks Lyle, one other thing is the myo-reps program doing the 40-60 reps per muscle group ? It seems that the myo-rep guys are going for less total reps. Just 1 set of 10 pause 3 pause 3 pause 2 pause 2 = 20 total reps.

It appears the myo-reps and doggcrapp style is concerned about over-doing volume. They want to be able to retrain the muscle again in as little as 48 hours. Is this why they keep number of reps down ?

I'm not lyle.. but with the myo-reps program its generally 2exercises per muscle group each workout, which would put the total reps at 40+. The total drops as the rep range does though

edit: just realised chest/shoulders only get 1 exercise.. nevermind me

Inque
02-15-2009, 03:51 PM
Nope, per workout. Twice per week.

Whoops lol

AllGenetix
02-15-2009, 03:54 PM
I'm not lyle.. but with the myo-reps program its generally 2exercises per muscle group each workout, which would put the total reps at 40+. The total drops as the rep range does though

i wouldn't put lyle into that statement i would go straight to Blade

Pikku
02-15-2009, 04:02 PM
i wouldn't put lyle into that statement i would go straight to Blade

?? i was responding to what stevie said.. which was directed at lyle hence the 'im not lyle'

but yes i agree blade is the one to talk to about this

Blade
02-15-2009, 04:48 PM
Mostly in the range of 25-35 total reps, up to 40-50 for a muscle group when doing two exercises (e.g. chins and rows, although the "back" obviously isn't just one muscle group), twice per week.

Veronique
02-16-2009, 03:58 AM
Read the article & been following this thread so tell me if i need to start a new one or am totally off base.

Would reps per set for optimal fat loss = range in the RFLP 'intermediate' sticky ... or something else?
e.g. still hitting 40-50/60 but with 6-8 or 8-12 rep max rather than 5x5's for the 2x exercises/muscle group, pyramid down?

Just want to update what i've learned before RE: non-BB training for women [who want to weight train for fat loss & preserve muscle but don't want 'big' muscles] with any new research... thankyou! V

Inque
02-16-2009, 07:40 AM
Read the article & been following this thread so tell me if i need to start a new one or am totally off base.

Would reps per set for optimal fat loss = range in the RFLP 'intermediate' sticky ... or something else?
e.g. still hitting 40-50/60 but with 6-8 or 8-12 rep max rather than 5x5's for the 2x exercises/muscle group, pyramid down?

Just want to update what i've learned before RE: non-BB training for women [who want to weight train for fat loss & preserve muscle but don't want 'big' muscles] with any new research... thankyou! V

The 40-60 rep range is for muscle growth. If your dieting volume should be significantly reduced. You can cut it by as much as 2/3 as long as intensity (weight on the bar) is maintained. You also want to keep the reps low so you get a high tension stimulus on the muscle. So yeah, I would use the suggested RFL workout

jc
02-16-2009, 08:02 AM
Just want to update what i've learned before RE: non-BB training for women [who want to weight train for fat loss & preserve muscle but don't want 'big' muscles] with any new research... thankyou! V

not sure if you really meant that you are afraid of having big muscles, but even if you did train purely to gain muscle mass, its highly unlikely you would develop muscles like a male.

Sugar
02-16-2009, 09:07 AM
Failure limit volume. If you go to failure on your first set, most likely you wo'nt be able to do jack squat in later sets. This is not good. IF you go to failure, save it for the last set of an exercise.

Even thre, going to total failure has a tendency to
a. really increase fatigue
b. not improve the training stimulus much

So you hear all the HIT/grind to failure guys talking about how they can't train more than once every 8 days b/c they take every set to failure. But if they stopped a rep short, not only wouldn't they generate massive amounts of fatigue, they would be able to train again 3-4 days later. Growth ensues.

Put differently, say you are working with an 8 rep max weight.
Compare a set of 7 reps vs 8 to failure.

That single rep will generate disproportionate fatigue and require much longer recovery periods, but without generating significantly more of a training stimulus.

Lyle, the reason why the last rep increases a lot fatigue has something to do with the fact that is the slowest rep, and thus increases TUT much more?.

lylemcd
02-16-2009, 09:09 AM
No. It's just neurological. Grindy quasi-isometrics seem to do something different neurally and the fatigue/training stimulus is just thrown out of proportions.

lylemcd
02-16-2009, 09:10 AM
not sure if you really meant that you are afraid of having big muscles, but even if you did train purely to gain muscle mass, its highly unlikely you would develop muscles like a male.

this has always been the biggest irony to me: guys all over the world are trying desperately to 'get big' and failing at it. And chicks with ~1/100th the testosterone think a little weight training will turn them into she-beasts overnight.

jc
02-16-2009, 11:11 AM
this has always been the biggest irony to me: guys all over the world are trying desperately to 'get big' and failing at it. And chicks with ~1/100th the testosterone think a little weight training will turn them into she-beasts overnight.

yea, I dont get it either

lylemcd
02-16-2009, 11:59 AM
I can think of a copule of reasons

1. most of the images of 'female bodybuilders' are the drug freaks that appear in the media. Of course, those girls also have 4Xas much testosterone as the averagemale. But females see that and think that's what weight training will do to them

2. When women start lifting weights, there is often a short period where they start holding a bunch of glycogen and 'feel' huge. Now, couple that with the often delayed fat loss that occurs and they swear they are 'getting' big.

But if you can get them to mellow for 2 more weeks, it goes away. And as soon as teh fat loss starts happening (often as late as week 4+), they start seeing how much better they are looking

Yucko
02-16-2009, 12:54 PM
But if you can get them to mellow for 2 more weeks, it goes away. And as soon as teh fat loss starts happening (often as late as week 4+), they start seeing how much better they are looking

Why is that? Is it teh magicz again, or is there any logical explanation behind that phenomenon?

lylemcd
02-16-2009, 01:07 PM
For now, magic is a sufficient answer.

jc
02-16-2009, 01:32 PM
For now, magic is a sufficient answer.

rofl, that was awesome.

but FWIW, I think Lyle may be referring to the whole phenom of holding onto lots of glycogen and water = being bloated and looking fat(ter). then going on a diet and after the water is lost and fat loss starts happening, people are like "oh, I really wasnt that fat afterall"

correct me Lyle, if this is not what you are talking about

lylemcd
02-16-2009, 01:45 PM
That's part of it

Veronique
02-16-2009, 01:47 PM
this has always been the biggest irony to me: guys all over the world are trying desperately to 'get big' and failing at it. And chicks with ~1/100th the testosterone think a little weight training will turn them into she-beasts overnight.

JC/Lyle: thanks for the replies. but I'm NOT one of those chicks - i've been weight training for eight years and train hard :)

I know it won't make us huge but there ARE women in the gym who do train & do get bigger muscles, get chunkier & harder than what i'd personally like and most women like. Some of them may even still be a size 6-8 and are not BB huge but whats unattractive to me [e.g. swimmers & jessica biel's too chunky for me]. But train the wrong way [too high weight/low reps] and my shoulders and back gets too wide & masculine.

Know what you mean tho... most women dont weight train :p

lylemcd
02-16-2009, 01:49 PM
chunkier is a fatness issue 999/1000. And the other 1/1000 is usually still that they are simply fat.

The amount of work that it takes for a non-drugged female to get big muscles is beyond most female trainees. I've rarely seen a female put that much effort into training unless I was coaching them. And they still don't get big musclse

And even if they did, it doesn't happen overnight. When a female starts getting 'bigger' than she wants (which happens about never), you simply stop overloading the muscles as much and growth stops. IT's not as if you wake up and go "OMG, I'm huge." It doesn't work that way, esp. given the slow rate of muscle growth in females (a female getting a pound per month is doing really well).

Veronique
02-16-2009, 01:49 PM
The 40-60 rep range is for muscle growth. If your dieting volume should be significantly reduced. You can cut it by as much as 2/3 as long as intensity (weight on the bar) is maintained. You also want to keep the reps low so you get a high tension stimulus on the muscle. So yeah, I would use the suggested RFL workout

Inque, thanks thats what i was thinking!

Veronique
02-16-2009, 01:52 PM
chunkier is a fatness issue 999/1000. And the other 1/1000 is usually still that they are simply fat.

The amount of work that it takes for a non-drugged female to get big muscles is beyond most female trainees. I've rarely seen a female put that much effort into training unless I was coaching them

True - I'm not most females [with my HR at 155 doing weights i train hard] :o

EDIT:


And even if they did, it doesn't happen overnight. When a female starts getting 'bigger' than she wants (which happens about never), you simply stop overloading the muscles as much and growth stops. IT's not as if you wake up and go "OMG, I'm huge." It doesn't work that way, esp. given the slow rate of muscle growth in females (a female getting a pound per month is doing really well).

Gotcha! thanks thats exactly what i was after. For me it happens over a few months and THEN i wake up and go OMG i can't fit my back into my work shirts even though i can see my top abs. but damn i LOVE overloading that muscle.

Thankyou!

PeyZS
02-16-2009, 02:00 PM
like you said above, I think most girls just freak from the pump effect

the same thing that gets us guys all high and often deludes us into thinking we're growing makes them miserable! haha

steviekm3
02-16-2009, 02:01 PM
JC/

I know it won't make us huge but there ARE women in the gym who do train & do get bigger muscles, get chunkier & harder than what i'd personally like and most women like. Some of them may even still be a size 6-8 and are not BB huge but whats unattractive to me [e.g. swimmers & jessica biel's too chunky for me]. But train the wrong way [too high weight/low reps] and my shoulders and back gets too wide & masculine.

Know what you mean tho... most women dont weight train :p

I think the one of the biggest reasons weight training helps women and men lose weight is it simply gets them in the gym more. Doing cardio 6 days a week can get really boring so you do it 3 days a week instead and spend the rest of the days doing weight training. Basically you just get to the gym more. Obviously with men there is the benefit of metabolism increase with more LBM.

lylemcd
02-16-2009, 02:05 PM
HR during weights doesn't mean squat, if you're maintaining 155, you're not training hard in the sense I'm talking about. You've turned lifting into some pseudo endurance workout.

You're just not taking long enough rest periods to make lifting worth anything because no way can you lift decent poundages training like that. The kind of training I'm talking about is lifting heavy weights and taking sufficient rest intervals to do it more than once.

There is also a selection effect here, females drawn to lifting heavy weights are often a little more on the 'masculine' side of things. They often have slightly higher levels of testosterone which means more trainability. they still don't get huge and certainly not overnight. It just doesn't happen.

Case in point:
http://65.181.182.145/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/stubborntestimonialfemalesmall.jpg

This is the girl I've mentioned prepping in Austin. Look 'bulky' to you? Yeah, me neither. She was <118 lbs in this picture and 2 weeks afterwards competed in a powerlifting meet whree she benched something like 135, power squatted 225 below parallel and just missed a 275 deadlift (and the miss was my fault, not hers).

She was high on the trainability scale. still didn't get big. Not chunky either because she was <8% bodyfat in that picture.

Veronique
02-16-2009, 02:05 PM
like you said above, I think most girls just freak from the pump effect

the same thing that gets us guys all high and often deludes us into thinking we're growing makes them miserable! haha

agree - i usually give myself 48 hours to dry out before a date. but guys will train that very morning.

lylemcd
02-16-2009, 02:06 PM
I think the one of the biggest reasons weight training helps women and men lose weight is it simply gets them in the gym more. Doing cardio 6 days a week can get really boring so you do it 3 days a week instead and spend the rest of the days doing weight training. Basically you just get to the gym more. Obviously with men there is the benefit of metabolism increase with more LBM.

the impact of gaining msucle on metabolic rate is irrelevant. 6 cal/lb muscle gained. Whoop de doo.

Any caloric benefit comes from doing the work it takes to gain the muscle.

steviekm3
02-16-2009, 02:15 PM
the impact of gaining msucle on metabolic rate is irrelevant. 6 cal/lb muscle gained. Whoop de doo.

Any caloric benefit comes from doing the work it takes to gain the muscle.

Lyle,
Total off topic but... where do you host your web site.. ? pretty darn fast compared to others.. You seem to be able to handle a fair bit of users...
I'm a computer programmer so somewhat interested in this stuff.

Cheers.

PeyZS
02-16-2009, 02:16 PM
agree - i usually give myself 48 hours to dry out before a date. but guys will train that very morning.

hahahah! exactly! friggin hilarious

my buddy always trains before he goes to class in the spring/summer hahahaha

Veronique
02-16-2009, 02:19 PM
HR during weights doesn't mean squat, if you're maintaining 155, you're not training hard in the sense I'm talking about. You've turned lifting into some pseudo endurance workout.

You're just not taking long enough rest periods to make lifting worth anything because no way can you lift decent poundages training like that. The kind of training I'm talking about is lifting heavy weights and taking sufficient rest intervals to do it more than once.

There is also a selection effect here, females drawn to lifting heavy weights are often a little more on the 'masculine' side of things. They often have slightly higher levels of testosterone which means more trainability. they still don't get huge and certainly not overnight. It just doesn't happen.

Case in point:
http://65.181.182.145/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/stubborntestimonialfemalesmall.jpg

This is the girl I've mentioned prepping in Austin. Look 'bulky' to you? Yeah, me neither. She was <118 lbs in this picture and 2 weeks afterwards competed in a powerlifting meet whree she benched something like 135, power squatted 225 below parallel and just missed a 275 deadlift (and the miss was my fault, not hers).

She was high on the trainability scale. still didn't get big. Not chunky either because she was <8% bodyfat in that picture.

Wow! Ok got your point. Damn you're a good trainer. She looks incredible!! benched 135!! she's still a bit scary though - i think my dates would freak if they saw my body looking like that. Very impressive.

Thankyou, very helpful - its ultimately about the poundage. I know when i got 'biggest' was when i was being spotted to bench 60kgs - we stopped because i didn't like the ripples that were happening. i'll stick to my pseudo endurance training, 12.5kg dumbbells & RFLP :o

jc
02-16-2009, 03:04 PM
she's still a bit scary though - i think my dates would freak if they saw my body looking like that. Very impressive.


darlin, keep in mind she wouldnt look like this for more than a few weeks at best.

patriots2
02-16-2009, 04:15 PM
darlin, keep in mind she wouldnt look like this for more than a few weeks at best.

Few weeks, huh? I was thinking maybe a few hours, considering she's most likely almost completely water depleted, while fully carb-loaded.

jc
02-16-2009, 04:24 PM
Few weeks, huh? I was thinking maybe a few hours, considering she's most likely almost completely water depleted, while fully carb-loaded.

well sure, I meant that staying that lean(dehydrated or not) is just not doable long term

lylemcd
02-16-2009, 07:12 PM
well sure, I meant that staying that lean(dehydrated or not) is just not doable long term

Wasn't my point in posting the picture. My point was that is a girl that will outlift the majority of female trainees.

She trained for strength and size and that's how 'bulky' she got. Without drugs, it just doesn't happen (with a few rare exceptions,usually genetic stuff like PCOS where testosterone is exceedingly high in females).

Melissa82
02-16-2009, 07:25 PM
I think another thing a lot of women don't make the connection with is that they have to be really lean to look like a bodybuilder as well. They see the pictures and get grossed out by so much definition, but don't get that with more body fat, they'd have a more curvy, softer appearance anyway.

AllGenetix
02-16-2009, 09:31 PM
put an evenly distributed 5lb-8lbs of fat on that girl and she would look damn hawt with curves n I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post..

lylemcd
02-16-2009, 09:33 PM
Sufficed to say she isn't that lean year round. But if you saw her in street clothes, given her size, you probably wouldn't think 'bulky man muscles'.

She can still outlift most females (she's regularly high bar squatting 225 for reps IIRC her current numbers).

Bottom line: without drugs or a weird disease like PCOS or that weird adrenal thing I forget the name of (adrenal hyperplasia)?, women don't get bulky. Even if they think they do.

The ones who look bulky or whatever....it's just fat.

Sugar
02-17-2009, 08:04 AM
Most of the times, the problem with girls & heavy lifting is more mental than real. They watch her on the mirror and see big muscles because a placebo effect: they lifted heavy weigths, so she must be big.

lylemcd
02-17-2009, 08:17 AM
No.

mpipes
02-17-2009, 10:35 PM
The amount of work that it takes for a non-drugged female to get big muscles is beyond most female trainees. I've rarely seen a female put that much effort into training unless I was coaching them. And they still don't get big musclse

And even if they did, it doesn't happen overnight.

My mom worked at a YMCA weight room when she was in her 30's, while she was also training and competing in powerlifting.

The women would come into the weight room, see her and get all whiny that they don't want to be bulky like she was. Of course, she took it as an insult, as if her years of hard work could be achieved instantly, and she'd fire back with "Honey, it takes several hours per day and several years, in the gym to achieve something like this, and I can already tell you just don't have the dedication in you." After which the women always breathed a sigh of relief.

lylemcd
02-18-2009, 09:13 AM
Yeah, as I mentioned earlier, the amount of work that it takes to get even remotely muscular for a woman, most wouldn't do it. Men or women.

story time: years ago back in Austin when I was training Elzi, there was this little wannabe frat boy. He did all of the silly bodybuilding stuff but never really did any work in the gym. He'd just go through the motions. He also had a huge crush on her. So one time I'm training the crap out of her and during a break he says to me "You know, if I worked that hard, I'd be huge." And it took every ounce of restraint to not tell him "Yeah, but we both know that you won't and you never will be."

PeyZS
02-18-2009, 10:31 AM
Yeah, as I mentioned earlier, the amount of work that it takes to get even remotely muscular for a woman, most wouldn't do it. Men or women.

story time: years ago back in Austin when I was training Elzi, there was this little wannabe frat boy. He did all of the silly bodybuilding stuff but never really did any work in the gym. He'd just go through the motions. He also had a huge crush on her. So one time I'm training the crap out of her and during a break he says to me "You know, if I worked that hard, I'd be huge." And it took every ounce of restraint to not tell him "Yeah, but we both know that you won't and you never will be."

aw come on Lyle, we all know true growth is just a matter of taking NO supplements ;)

I can't BELIEVE how much people invest in gimicks. But given how hard it is to get true growth, I guess I can...

jc
02-18-2009, 11:05 AM
aw come on Lyle, we all know true growth is just a matter of taking NO supplements ;)

I can't BELIEVE how much people invest in gimicks. But given how hard it is to get true growth, I guess I can...

ehh its really not that hard until you are advanced. people are just lazy, stupid, or impatient.

lylemcd
02-18-2009, 11:22 AM
It's hard in that hard work is hard (in the sense of being effortful), because it's hard. And people are lazy. The discomfort that is required to make progress at anything is beyond most people. It gets a little bit difficult and they stop.

I knew a guy back in Austin who did supplements and always asked me to design him one that 'worked'. I said come up with something that would make people actually put some effort into the gym and watch their diets. That's what works.

I also think it's 'hard' in that there is such vast mis-information out there. 99% of what's in bodybuilding comic books is garbage, a bunch of stuff that nobody actually does made doubly irrelevant by the drug use of professionals. nobody knows how to train naturals any more and everybody ends up on idiotic training schemes focusing on the wrong things (the pump, exhaustion, etc) so of course they don't grow.

And it's in the magazines vested interest to make those guys think that the solution is a pill. Because giving free training advice that works doesn't make you money, selling a stupid supplement at $45/month for a year does.

kel varnsen
02-23-2009, 04:50 AM
lyle, what are your thoughts on "myoreps"? it's to some degree, based on research by mathias wernbom. for instance, halfway on 20-25RM sets there was the same level of muscle fiber activation as 5RM sets.

the basics of it is this:
first, you do an "activation set" of 8-12 reps. i say activation, as you need to do a few reps at lower resistance to fire up all the muscle fibres. then, you take a short break, about 10 seconds, before you do another 3 reps. then another 10 second break, followed by 3 more reps. this goes on, until you start to reach failure. at which point, you take a slightly extended break. possibly around 15-20 seconds. then you do 2 more reps, 10 second break, 2 reps etc until you reach near failure.

there is a lot of variation to it. depending on progression, resistance and how "you feel" that particular day. however, that is the basis of it. first, an activation set. to stimulate the muscle fibres. then, you do short "mini sets" with 10-15 seconds in between. all the time, trying to avoid failure. meaning, that you stop on the rep before failure.

lylemcd
02-23-2009, 08:23 AM
Blade posts here sometimes, search for those posts and you'll find your answer.

kel varnsen
02-23-2009, 11:41 AM
thanks. i tried searching for "myoreps" and "myo-reps", but i was unsuccesful. i'm not sure how to incorporate that "-" into the search string.

lylemcd
02-23-2009, 11:44 AM
Read this thread from the beginning all the way through, I'm fairly sure that's where most of his comments live. Along with mine. Including a very silly disagreement over nothing.

kel varnsen
02-23-2009, 12:09 PM
already on it. some interesting info here. it never occured to me that the near failure concept was troublesome. i'm not a very experienced lifter, but i think i have decent idea of when i'm 1-2 reps away from failure.

furthermore, i always thought the overall volume was key to myo-reps. in the sense that it doesn't really matter if you end the first set 1 or 2 reps away from failure, as you'll keep churning out those mini sets afterwards.

Blade
02-24-2009, 01:20 AM
1 or 2 reps away from failure is pretty much irrelevant in the big scheme of things, the whole point is to manage fatigue (not avoid it completely) in order to maximize fiber recruitment and rate coding, while getting in the volume requirement. I've found the 40-60 reps per muscle group 2x/weekly from Wernbom's review to (probably) scale down to 25-40 reps using Myo-reps. I also implement a dropset or even triple drop approach on heavier loads in the 4-8RM range, so instead of doing all 30 reps at e.g. a 6RM I'll do 10-15 reps, reduce load by 10-20% and do the remaining reps (15-20 + a couple more to compensate for the load reduction).

T.G.
02-24-2009, 01:51 PM
Blade / Lyle ...maybe I am being anal as hell...but I thought the review by Wernbom's showed reps of 25 to 50 reps twice a week. Is this old research that I am recalling / looking at...or is there a new study out....or is this just yours and Lyle real world expierence's that is showing 40 to 60 reps being more productive? I know heavier loads play a factor too.

Thanks,

lylemcd
02-24-2009, 01:54 PM
Read section 3.1.4: Volume, page 14 of the paper, sentence starting with "The maximum rate of CSA.....". Please type in what it says.

Pikku
02-24-2009, 02:20 PM
The maximum rate of CSA increase was found in the interval between 42 and 66 repetitions

not 40-60 :p

T.G.
02-24-2009, 02:27 PM
The research of the paper I read was a summary by one of the br.com members...so were do I go to actually read the official research paper not a summary by a forum member?

lylemcd
02-24-2009, 02:32 PM
either you get someone to send you a digital copy OR....you trot up to the local biomedical library and copy it yourself

lylemcd
02-24-2009, 02:32 PM
not 40-60 :p

Yeah, cuz lifters don't get obsessive enough about irrelevant stuff

Bro, I only did 41 reps.
Yeah, bro, your workout was wasted. might as well go eat fudge, your loser wannabe

Pikku
02-24-2009, 07:47 PM
Yeah, cuz lifters don't get obsessive enough about irrelevant stuff

Bro, I only did 41 reps.
Yeah, bro, your workout was wasted. might as well go eat fudge, your loser wannabe

haha, and if 60reps is good.. 120 must be twice as good

Trainer36
03-30-2009, 11:52 PM
Lyle,

For hyperthrophy, do you generally recommend descending sets over ascending sets in terms of reps? I take it in general, you recommend trying to achieve the same number of reps set to set, but lean more toward ascending if changing?

lylemcd
03-31-2009, 02:59 AM
Given the choice, I'd rather see weight staying the same. Since that's not always possible, I generlaly use descending pyramids. Ascending pyramids have their place as the article on the main site (a look at the 5X5 system) talks about.

This topic would require an entire article to fully go into.

Sugar
03-31-2009, 01:13 PM
Which is the advantage of the classic 12,10,8,6 descending reps that was usually seen in bodybuilding magazines, other than exhausting you with the high rep sets and keeping you from moving veahy weigths in the last sets?.

Yucko
03-31-2009, 01:38 PM
Yeah you get the pumpz! And we all know pumpz = musselz.

Adam
03-31-2009, 04:41 PM
This is my first post, although I have been lurking for some time. Years ago, I communicated with Lyle about training to failure. I think it was on the old Weights.net or something like that. He wasn't famous in those days. :) I am glad to see people are listening to him. Anyway, I would be really interested in Lyle's (and anyone else's) views about this posting on Clarence Bass's site about a metastudy done by Dr. Carpinelli. The basic conclusion seems to be that, at least up to 20 RM, the load -- and, therefore, the repetitions per set -- is irrelevant, as long as the set requires a maximal effort to complete. Carpinelli seems to conclude that all types of muscle fibers will fire and, presumably, be fatigued as long as a set is carried to failure with a load of 20 RM or greater. Carpinelli is well known for his advocacy of HIT principles, but I tend to doubt that that is a sufficient basis to simply dismiss his views. There have been comments about this on a number of forums, with the expected diversity of opinions. I've chimed in elsewhere with my reservations, but I lack the scientific background to do more than rely on anecdote and what I can only hope is common sense. Here's the link: http://http://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm

3slaters
03-31-2009, 04:48 PM
Im not well versed in this but even if all the muscle fibers are activated at failure with a 20rm load wouldnt it be for a very short period of time? A set at 80% would have full fiber activation for a much longer period of time hence better results.....I might be way off base here.

Adam
03-31-2009, 07:07 PM
I suspect that you aren't off base at all. The former strength coach of the Giants, Johnny Parker, advocated training with heavy loads and not to failure, and, as I recall, he once explained his preference similarly. I don't want to put words in his mouth -- and it has been a long time -- but I think he believed that with a heavy set the fast twitch fibers would be firing from the first rep, rather than having them fire only at the end of a failure set. (He also, of course, had to be concerned about the ability of the players to actually perform well on the field, and I think he felt that wearing them out with failure sets was not conducive to that.)

Yucko
04-01-2009, 12:31 AM
Go read: http://www.weightrainer.net/physiology/physiology.html

lylemcd
04-01-2009, 04:48 AM
I'm fairly sure I addressed that in the article itself.

Trainer36
04-01-2009, 08:01 PM
Lyle,

What are your thoughts about stage reps or Jreps (http://www.zone-training.net/articles/JRepdetails.html)?

lylemcd
04-02-2009, 02:21 AM
I wouldn't bother.

swolll
04-13-2009, 07:49 PM
What are the basic guidelines for rest between sets for hypertrophy and what is the timing based on?
I noticed its 3 minutes when in the 6-8 rep range in your bulking routine, so is it by reps/intensity or are you supposed to start with longer rests earlier in the workout or is it something else?

Yucko
04-14-2009, 12:49 AM
A combination to get both a heavy tension stimuli (i.e. long rest so you can perform with high intensity) and a lower rest period so you get the fatigue stimuli. Focus should be on the tension sets though.

swolll
05-02-2009, 11:38 PM
what happens when a person does more than 60 reps for a large muscle group? i see dudes doing probaby 120+ reps for a "chest" or "arms" day, yet they still seem to make solid progress (even past the noob stage).

Pikku
05-03-2009, 12:15 AM
40-60reps isn't the only amount that will get results, it's just the optimal range according to the current research. so some guys doing 120reps might be progressing, just not optimally.. or they might have freaky genetics and will grow by looking at weights

AllGenetix
05-03-2009, 10:39 AM
they are probably doing the 1x/week bro split where they destroy the muscle and give it a week to recover. that can work, but probably isnt optimal. 40-60 reps 2x/week is what research has shown to be most effective.

swolll
05-03-2009, 12:27 PM
i haven't found/read the study that recommended 40-60 reps. did it test the higher rep ranges twice a week?
like, what happened when the weightlifters did 80 reps twice a week? were gains the same or were they less or what?

lylemcd
05-03-2009, 02:23 PM
Sports Med. (javascript:AL_get(this,%20'jour',%20'Sports%20Med .');) 2007;37(3):225-64.Links (javascript:PopUpMenu2_Set(Menu17326698);)
The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans.

Wernbom M (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Wernbom%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Augustsson J (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Augustsson%20J%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Thomeé R (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Thome%C3%A9%20R%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus).
mLundberg Laboratory for Human Muscle Function and Movement Analysis, Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. mathias.vernbom@orthop.gu.se
Strength training is an important component in sports training and rehabilitation. Quantification of the dose-response relationships between training variables and the outcome is fundamental for the proper prescription of resistance training. The purpose of this comprehensive review was to identify dose-response relationships for the development of muscle hypertrophy by calculating the magnitudes and rates of increases in muscle cross-sectional area induced by varying levels of frequency, intensity and volume, as well as by different modes of strength training. Computer searches in the databases MEDLINE, SportDiscus and CINAHL were performed as well as hand searches of relevant journals, books and reference lists. The analysis was limited to the quadriceps femoris and the elbow flexors, since these were the only muscle groups that allowed for evaluations of dose-response trends. The modes of strength training were classified as dynamic external resistance (including free weights and weight machines), accommodating resistance (e.g. isokinetic and semi-isokinetic devices) and isometric resistance. The subcategories related to the types of muscle actions used. The results demonstrate that given sufficient frequency, intensity and volume of work, all three types of muscle actions can induce significant hypertrophy at an impressive rate and that, at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training. Tentative dose-response relationships for each variable are outlined, based on the available evidence, and interactions between variables are discussed. In addition, recommendations for training and suggestions for further research are given.

swolll
05-03-2009, 11:04 PM
okay. and do you can't even the secondary/indirect muscle "hits" as reps? For example, do I count DB bench and incline bench as shoulder movements? And do I count lat pull downs as biceps?
I did 3 pulldown sets, 3 cable row sets, and that put me at 58 reps. So was it right for me to still do one set of bicep curls?

AllGenetix
05-03-2009, 11:53 PM
the overlap does have an effect. i usually do 50-60 reps for chest, ~24-32 for shoulders (3 x 8, 4 x 6) and then a nice myo-rep set for triceps. all of this info is all over the forum if you just searched.

PeyZS
05-05-2009, 11:38 AM
The 5-8 that achieves full recruitment, and is 80-85% of 1RM, thats a 5-8 thats more or less at/near failure yes?


I don't have a handle on my 1RM at all, as I don't train with a spotter and don't wanna kill myself, but I do have a solid handle on 5RMs

is there a quick off-hand way to guesstimate a 12RM, lets say, from a 5RM? 20% less weight or something like that?

lylemcd
05-05-2009, 11:42 AM
Generally speaking

5 reps would be about 85% of max
12 reps would be something like 70%

So about a 15% difference.

AllGenetix
05-05-2009, 07:32 PM
lyle whats your thoughts on determining ones fiber type based on how many reps at a given %1RM they can perform?

lylemcd
05-05-2009, 10:15 PM
I think it's hard to differentiate between fiber typing and getting good at what you train for. People who train with low reps get betterat low reps and vice versa so I'm not sure the test is that particularly valid.

As well, what are you going to change practically in your training assuming it does tell you something?

AllGenetix
05-05-2009, 11:44 PM
http://drsquat.com/content/knowledge-base/finding-ideal-training-split

this is the root of my wanking

waltmiller
05-12-2009, 07:12 PM
http://drsquat.com/content/knowledge-base/finding-ideal-training-split

this is the root of my wanking

Oooh, thats very interesting! So, slow gainers can do a lot of reps at 80%RM and need lots of reps for maximum growth. I hope we can dig up some other stuff that substantiates this... time for a little pubmed query.

PeyZS
05-12-2009, 08:19 PM
As well, what are you going to change practically in your training assuming it does tell you something?

he's gonna do the Arnold BBing encyclopedia split!!!

I guess some people just figure out how much volume/fatigue they need to grow

Lyle I remember you saying somewhere that Sara, for one, doesn't grow well on low volume/high intensity stuff, does better with a balance between higher volume and heavy sets

not sure if thats relevant, but it comes to mind

cuz OTOH, some people seem to really thrive on low volume HIT style training

and as far as acclimation goes, I can vouche for it. Having used myoreps for months now, I can honestly hit 5 reps with my 6RM and have another 3-4 reps in the tank 10-15 secs later. I've checked my self for BSing this by periodically doing a workout of 'regular sets' and where I do full on fail, with the above load? 6 reps.

But going into the 10-12 range, I absolutely *suck*. I have seriously reduced weight 20% from a 6RM and failed far before 10 lol.

AllGenetix
05-12-2009, 09:46 PM
lyle can stick to the same program and continue to make gains. other have different training zones that fit them better (higher intesity, low volume, high volume, etc)

check out his interview on some other website. im too lazy to link it.

waltmiller
05-13-2009, 08:46 AM
I did several rounds of pubmed searches for combinations of key words like "fast slow twitch reps sets repetitions muscle growth" but didn't find anything that would support Hatfields's observations ( http://drsquat.com/content/knowledge-base/finding-ideal-training-split )

I'd like to believe it since parts of it make sense. Someone with a lot of fast twitch fibers should be able to produce more force in general, but not be able to sustain the effort for very long, so very few reps are possible before fatigue. The person with lots of slow twitch fibers can't lift much, but is able to do a lot of repetitions.

What I'm not sure about is why a high percentage of fast twitch fibers requires a longer recovery time.

lylemcd
05-13-2009, 09:10 AM
he's gonna do the Arnold BBing encyclopedia split!!!

I guess some people just figure out how much volume/fatigue they need to grow

Lyle I remember you saying somewhere that Sara, for one, doesn't grow well on low volume/high intensity stuff, does better with a balance between higher volume and heavy sets

I think some of this is simply a training experience thing. I've been doing this stuff for nearly 2 decades, she hasn't.

That said, in hindsight, I strongly believe I'd have made better progress with higher volume. Part of my success with low volume lifting now is due to it being tacked onto a ton of other training. And speed skating is weird in that al ot of the movement we do are basically one leg squatting. I'm getting extra 'strength' work in the skating position. If I were only lifting right now, I'd be doing more volume.



cuz OTOH, some people seem to really thrive on low volume HIT style training


Really? Whom? Most of the staunch HIT guys I've ever run into didn't grow for much. Now, if you're talkign about DC that's different but his system is higher volme than most realize.


and as far as acclimation goes, I can vouche for it. Having used myoreps for months now, I can honestly hit 5 reps with my 6RM and have another 3-4 reps in the tank 10-15 secs later. I've checked my self for BSing this by periodically doing a workout of 'regular sets' and where I do full on fail, with the above load? 6 reps.

But going into the 10-12 range, I absolutely *suck*. I have seriously reduced weight 20% from a 6RM and failed far before 10 lol.

Yeah, that's just a function of practice: you get better at what you practice and folks who only do low reps tend to suck at higher reps b/c they lose the metabolic capacities to do well at them.

lylemcd
05-13-2009, 09:12 AM
I did several rounds of pubmed searches for combinations of key words like "fast slow twitch reps sets repetitions muscle growth" but didn't find anything that would support Hatfields's observations ( http://drsquat.com/content/knowledge-base/finding-ideal-training-split )

I'd like to believe it since parts of it make sense. Someone with a lot of fast twitch fibers should be able to produce more force in general, but not be able to sustain the effort for very long, so very few reps are possible before fatigue. The person with lots of slow twitch fibers can't lift much, but is able to do a lot of repetitions.

What I'm not sure about is why a high percentage of fast twitch fibers requires a longer recovery time.

I think, presumably, they can put out more total work/stress the organism more which may require more rest. Or something

But here's the thing: Type I fibers don't grow much in the first place. Trying to target them explicitly tends to be something of a lost cause. Even if someone has a smaller percentage of Type II fibers, I don't see that as changing what they should do in training to grow them. They simoply may not have as much potential for growth.

kel varnsen
05-18-2009, 06:12 AM
currently i'm doing a push/pull split that looks something like this:
push(mon and thur):
one legged squats/leg press (alternating)
bench press
shoulder press
dips

pull(tue and fri):
pull ups
deadlifts/straigh leg deadlift
db rows
db curls

let's assume that i do 4 sets, each 8 reps on all the exercises(a little less on deadlifts). is that enough volume per week or do i need to increase sets/reps?

Pikku
05-18-2009, 06:41 AM
pretty much all in the 40-60 range.
you may need more for legs depending on how you progress but in any case i dont like the setup, seems like a good way to ruin the shoulder girdle by using it 4xweek

kel varnsen
05-18-2009, 07:55 AM
what adjustments would you recommend? replace the shoulder press once a week with something else?

...and as for the 40-60 reps twice per week, do for instance both dips and bench press classify as a "chest exercise". so that the combined reps of both dips and bench press, should be 40-60 x 2?

Pikku
05-18-2009, 04:56 PM
Yeah i was counting bench and dips as chest exercises, which comes to 64 total per wo.

As for what id suggest, something along the lines of lyle's generic bulk which is an upper/lower

kel varnsen
05-19-2009, 06:44 AM
thanks, but no thanks.

banderbe
05-19-2009, 10:56 AM
thanks, but no thanks.

SAY VANDELAY!! SAY VANDELAY!!

kel varnsen
05-19-2009, 02:30 PM
mandelbaum, mandelbaum, mandelbaum!

btw, after playing football(soccer) for nearly 20 years, my legs aren't exactly lacking, so i'm focusing on my upper body now. trying to catch up to the lower half...

kel varnsen
06-18-2009, 09:56 AM
had a few questions regarding number of reps and resistance on each set:

-i do a two split four days a week. should i have one "light" and one "heavy" workout, or just keep the set/rep structure identical throughout? for instance, at the moment i am doing 5x5 or 4x6. should i instead try for instance 3x8-10 twice a week and 5x5 twice a week?

-when doing a 5x5 set, should the resistance/weight be the same for each set? i usually go all out and throw on as much weight as i can (and still get in 5 good reps).

lylemcd
06-18-2009, 10:01 AM
First question: Goals?

Second question: read this (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/the-5x5-program.html)

kel varnsen
06-18-2009, 10:06 AM
goals: mass growth. simple as that.

let's say that once a week i do 5x5 pull ups at around 80% of max capacity. then, once a week i do 4x8 (or something similar) at 70-75%(?) of max capacity. would there be any advantage to this? is skipping back and forth between 70 and 80 % resistance good or bad? in terms of mass growth.

lylemcd
06-18-2009, 10:09 AM
Yes, no, there's no single answer. IF you look a the generic bulking routine, it has both lower and higher rep sets. Others would argue that doing them on different days (e.g. one workout of higher rps and lower loads and one of heavier loads and lower reps) is better. Tomato, tomato.

kel varnsen
06-18-2009, 10:21 AM
it isn't detrimental to overall progress? for the last two months, i've been doing 5x5 across sets. full load, every set. if i can't complete all five sets, i repeat the same routine next workout. i don't add weight until i complete the full 5x5.

how would mixing in a higher rep range influence the overall strength/mass growth? would the two workouts, be completely "seperated"? so that on workout A, i'd try to complete 5x5 at a given resistance, while on workout B i'd try to complete 3x8 reps for instance? intuitively, jumping back and forth like this seem a bit odd to me, but then again, i know very little about training...

Sugar
06-19-2009, 10:11 AM
Powerlifters do low reps (main lifts) and high reps (assistance lifts) in the same workouts and progress.

In fact, there was a research published on tmuscle.com that said that low & high reps brings more strength gains that low reps alone.

I think it could be due to an increase in work capacity (muscles recover faster between sets) and in muscle mass.

But, at the end, the only way to know which is better is trial & error.

Dr. Stalingrad
06-29-2009, 05:40 AM
Does a high rep backoff set makes smth good to trained muscle insulin sensitivity? Is it of any good (is the effect profound enough) for supplying the muscle with AA after training session?

lylemcd
06-29-2009, 09:43 AM
The question remaining on my mind is how much volume is needed to significnalyt raise insulin/nutrient uptake sensitivity. Will one set get it done? I don't know.

wazzup
06-29-2009, 12:06 PM
The question remaining on my mind is how much volume is needed to significnalyt raise insulin/nutrient uptake sensitivity. Will one set get it done? I don't know.

A diabetic who's doing the typical 2 or 3*15 with light weights (not working out in a sense that I would call working out, just your average fitness Joe) told me he had to half his diabetes medication (I ASSumed insulin, but he could be a type 2 and use insulin promoting stuff), so whatever you do it's better than doing nothing. I think one good set will get the job done.

SturmBG
06-29-2009, 02:53 PM
What about doing the warm up set with about 12-15 reps? Not with the highest load of course.

PeyZS
06-29-2009, 03:12 PM
high rep warm ups doesn't serve me well, personally

I stick to 5 max

lylemcd
06-29-2009, 07:08 PM
What about doing the warm up set with about 12-15 reps? Not with the highest load of course.

Please read the two part series on warming up on the main site

SuperBig
06-29-2009, 08:27 PM
The question remaining on my mind is how much volume is needed to significnalyt raise insulin/nutrient uptake sensitivity. Will one set get it done? I don't know.

Man I would love to see that answer, but I would think it would depend so much on meal timing as well as workout timing, duration of workout, etc - so very individual. For instance, I workout around 6pm and try to have my previous meal about 2-3hours pre-workout.

I always judge it by how long after a workout do I feel "hungry" again, holding everything constant and having my standard PWO shake of 35g VitargoS2 and 23g whey. Typically, when I have a "good" workout I find that 60 mins is perfect (big finding huh). Interestingly, I feel this way when my workouts are intense and within 30-60 min duration max.

pats fan
07-31-2009, 08:08 AM
In response to some of the 5x5 discussion...Mark Rippetoe stated in his Practical Programming book that he feels it is highly necessary to use a recovery day once per week to aid in recovery from the heavier days.

For example, I lift full body three days per week...two days are heavy...one day is 5x5, 6x4, 8x3 ,etc.....the other day I use rest/pause or cluster sets....for example, with my 3-4 RM, bang out 1 rep, rest 10 sec, 1 rep, rest 10 sec...typically I will get 5-7 reps this way....

On a third day, do explosive reps...for example, sets of five with a 10 rm, or sets of 3 w/ a 6-7 rm, explosively....with short rest periods, in circuit format....I tend to feel like a million bucks this way, it aids in recovery, yet still hits the fast twitch muscle fibers due to the explosive concentric.