BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General training questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 02-01-2018, 08:41 AM
zLeeKo's Avatar
zLeeKo zLeeKo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 751
Default

How to get big as intermediate:

1. Lift the thing
2. Lower the thing
3. Repeat 5-15 times
4. Do again in 3-5 days
5. Add weight to the thing
6. Go to 1
__________________
"He never had the makings of a varsity athlete"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 02-01-2018, 08:59 AM
jimike jimike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 116
Default

Not really. I'll do it for a month to six weeks when losing weight in a very sizeable deficit as it seems decent for that but going forward I am going to do something much higher volume when not dieting for sure.
I didn't progress beyond my current numbers on RPT in the past so I won't be doing it again as a bulking routine but yeah I was curious what people thought. Kill me :-)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 02-21-2018, 11:59 AM
Roger Shredderer Roger Shredderer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 67
Default

Has anyone in this thread even looked at the link OP gave?

It ticks all the boxes in terms of volume, intensity and frequency - 6 sets of bench, 3 for OHP, 6 for squats, 2 for DL, 6 sets of rows and 3 sets of chins. So while not overly voluminous, the intensity compensates for that. Training to failure is done in higher rep ranges (8+), which doesn't burn you out as much and is required to activate all muscle fibers.

So the bulking version has around 8 sets for legs, 9 for push, 9 for pull per week. I don't see a reason why it couldn't work, especially if the sets are close to failure.

Maybe add some extra hamstring work for squat day and some leg work in general, otherwise it's a decent set-up. Or you could just keep it away from failure and add some more volume to compensate, doesn't really make a difference.

You just have to run a program for a while, note your experiences and modify it according to your needs as you progress further. Which probably means higher volumes over time, especially for lagging body parts.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 02-21-2018, 05:10 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,339
Default

No, Roger, of course not. Nobody here has any clue what Martikn's magic reverse pyramid training is. Nobody.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 07-16-2019, 11:59 PM
KSV KSV is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 10
Default

What does it achieve compared to straight sets?

Reverse pyramiding has effects in between that of straight sets and drop-sets. As such, it suffers from some of the same problems as drop-sets.

Reverse pyramiding induces greater neuromuscular fatigue and metabolic stress without resulting in superior strength development or muscle growth. The increased stress is likely the result of the greater total amount of work done by using reverse pyramids.

There are 3 reasons for why this greater stress does not result in superior training adaptations.

The average intensity is lower. This can explain the lack of greater strength development, which in turn can explain the lack of greater long term muscle hypertrophy.

Mixing intensities in the same session of the same exercise may confound specific training adaptations, much like the interference effect. Bros sometimes call this ‘muscle confusion’. It is largely theoretical at the moment, but it aligns with the SAID principle.

Mixing intensities in the same session of the same exercise likely confounds technique development. Changing the load of an exercise changes its biomechanics, especially if it’s a closed kinetic chain exercise like the squat, push-up or chin-up where the external load strongly influences your center of gravity. People that actually lift should intuitively know this. A squat at 60% of 1 RM does not feel like the same movement as a 1 RM squat.

Who benefits from it?

Injury-prone exercises and trainees, like the elderly, often benefit from the use of lower average training intensities without compromising muscle growth.

People short on time, especially novices where exercise intensity isn’t that important yet, may also find reverse pyramids time-efficient due to their greater work output.

More advanced bodybuilding trainees often benefit from reverse pyramiding their high-intensity work, as it is simply impractical to get enough total work done with straight sets above ~90% of 1RM. As a general guideline, it’s good to reverse pyramid all sets with 4 or fewer reps.

However, the needless extra stress makes reverse pyramids unsuitable as a default technique during high-volume training.

Last edited by KSV : 07-17-2019 at 12:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 08-14-2019, 09:48 PM
Roger Shredderer Roger Shredderer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 67
Default

The problem with most training programs is lack of relative intensity, i.e leaving stimulative reps out while doing endless fluff and pump sets that aren't taken close to failure.

As far as we know now, muscle growth is just a function of stimulative reps (in amounts of which are based on recovery capabilities and will never be fully known exactly, at least not on an individual level).

RPT just uses a fool-proof method of tracking (by going all out) which in the long run is more important than any other variable of training.

What about more moderate approaches? Well, why would you want to spend more time to get the same amount of results? If we know about 15 effective reps (3 sets to failure) accounts for the vast majority of muscular stimulation in one workout, why not get it over with in the least amount of time possible?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 08-15-2019, 08:55 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Shredderer View Post
The problem with most training programs is lack of relative intensity, i.e leaving stimulative reps out while doing endless fluff and pump sets that aren't taken close to failure.

As far as we know now, muscle growth is just a function of stimulative reps (in amounts of which are based on recovery capabilities and will never be fully known exactly, at least not on an individual level).

RPT just uses a fool-proof method of tracking (by going all out) which in the long run is more important than any other variable of training.

What about more moderate approaches? Well, why would you want to spend more time to get the same amount of results? If we know about 15 effective reps (3 sets to failure) accounts for the vast majority of muscular stimulation in one workout, why not get it over with in the least amount of time possible?
The standard HIT fallacy: if you do'nt go to failure, you don't know how hard you're training. It was wrong 20 years ago and wrong now. Tack on time efficiency. Why aren't you doing Dogcrap then. it's even MORE time efficient. ON and on it goes, now if you'll just go away.

The options are not failure and pissing around with nothing in the middle.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.