View Full Version : Pure Mass.
4-11 reps, what is that all about?
To my mind, if you want to train heavy, then train heavy. Heavy is; singles doubles and triples. Although even triples not anything like sinlges in terms of SHEER WEIGHT.
Lots of weight will obviously promote sarcomere hypertrophy. Do you need set after set after set to spark growth? No. Will doing set 6x3 with say 100kg spark more growth than doing just the 1x3 with 100kg for a given frequency, probally yes? What about if the frequency of the 1x3 is upped to 150%, or even 200%?
Also, it is well documented and many of us are living testimant to the fact that high reps with light weight promotes easy to come by sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. What is light?
Is light 6 reps? Well yes, but why use a weight that is so heavy you can only manage 6 reps? If sarcoplasmic hypertrophy comes with volume (reps) then why not make that 6 reps into 8, or 10, or 20?
Can anyone here present a decent arguement against using 20 rep sets for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as opposed to 10 rep sets?
I realise at some point as the reps get higher the training effect lends itself more towards the endurance end of the specturm, but there must a be a limit, a cut off point, an optimal comprimise between extreme-volume and nearly-cardio. If you can find that point, then you have the optimum rep range for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, do you not?
Also, for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, why do multipe sets, when one set is enough to cover the desired volume? If you do 1x20 with XXXKG, is doing another, and another set with the same weight going to give you a greater response (more muscle) than doing just the one set? I can't see why it would.
This is following on form some thinking I have been doing about minimal possible effort for maximum possible effect. Take pushups for example:
If you had 5 guys guy who could each do 1-5 pushups and benched 40kg.....
If you just made each guy do pushups until he could manage XYZ in one set, and tested his bench 1RM at the end.... Who's bench would have gone up the highest, and at what point would the number of push ups no longer correlate with an increase in limit strength:
Guy A: 10 pushups?
Guy B: 20 pushups?
Guy C: 35 pushups?
Guy D: 55 pushups?
Guy E: 100 pushups?
Guy F: 500 pushups?
With that in mind (JBT+PK, I would appreciate your thoughts on this - however I stress everyone is welcome to comment), would a pure hypertrophy (as in, highest possible increase in LBM in shortest possible time) routine not be best layed out like this:
1. High strain > Low volume. Lower.
Squat - 1x1/1x2/1x3
Deadlift/Clean Pull - 1x1/1x2/1x3
2. Low Strain > High volume. Upper.
Bench - 1x30
Row - 1x30
OHP - 1x30
Chin - 1x30
+ 1-3 isolations. All 1x30
3. Rest.
4. Low strain > High volume. Lower.
Front Squat - 1x30
SLDL - 1x30
Zercher - 1x30
Pullthrough - 1x30
5. High strain > Low volume. Upper.
Bench - 1x1/1x2/1x3
Row - 1x1/1x2/1x3
6. Repeat cycle from Day 1.
So it would look like this (HS=high strain, L=lower, U=upper, V=volume/low strain)
1. HSL
2. VU
3. Rest
4. VL
5. HSU
6. HSL
7. VU
8. Rest
9. VL
10. HSU
11. HSL
12. VU
13. Rest
14. VL
15. HSU
In 15 days you have done everything 3 times. On both the lower and the upper body, you have done 3 heavy sessions working as close to your 1/2/3RM as your recovery will allow. And 3 volume/density sessions, with the aim of as much hypertrophy as possible for as little effort as possible.
Anyone wanna volunteer to try it? I would but i'm crocked. If you can wait say 6-8 weeks I'd definatly try it.
I will be using it for some mass when I come back from this injury. For a short time.
If sarcoplasmic growth is quicker than myo, why bother with the high strain workouts? Why not have ALL of them low strain high volume? Obviously it would be boring as fcuk but wouldn't that work better? If you were going to do it just for a month or two to try and re-bulk it'd be bearable.
How long is short? 6 weeks/2 cycles?
If sarcoplasmic growth is quicker than myo, why bother with the high strain workouts? Why not have ALL of them low strain high volume? Obviously it would be boring as fcuk but wouldn't that work better? If you were going to do it just for a month or two to try and re-bulk it'd be bearable.
Myo doesn't come on its own, and neither does sarco. Doing either/or is not optimal. Dong both, is.
How long is short? 6 weeks/2 cycles?
In theory, as long as you want. But in practice I can see it being more like 4 weeks on, 1 week off.
Myo doesn't come on its own, and neither does sarco. Doing either/or is not optimal. Dong both, is.
Cool, cheers.
PikeKing
12-03-2005, 08:33
interesting post, i'm not sure what to think about it at the moment, i will have a think about it
bunnyluva
12-03-2005, 09:05
Would it be possible to combine strength and mass rep schemes in the same workout?
Say
2 warm up sets (1x8, 1x5) followed by 3x3, 3x1 followed by (mass) 1x12-15
I'm not a big strenght trainer so i don't know what works best for strength when it comes to reps.
Monday bench (as above) with some CG benching 3x8
Wed squat (as above)
Friday Deads (as above) with some bodyweight chins and barbell curls 3x8
Just a thought to add to the topic.
Nice post Rob.
Phil
It is possible to do that BK, but the point of my post is to find out exactly what THE MOST effective protocol is for pure mass. I am not interested in strength increases (that is to say; in the context of this thread), the only increases in strength I intend to make are those that are absolutely nessecary - load plays a big part in hypertrophy - so it makes sense to have a heavy/HS day.
bunnyluva
12-03-2005, 10:19
It is possible to do that BK, but the point of my post is to find out exactly what THE MOST effective protocol is for pure mass. .
If you find out let me know :023:
Personally I dislike routines that try to do too much, some stuff i've seen you need a degree in maths to work em out, far too complicated. All the 'gurus' arguing that their training is better, throwing in long words, different phases etc etc etc.
Consistency is the key factor, 3-5 years of hard training. Trouble is lean body mass comes so slowly for the common drug free man (after the initiall 4-6 months of beginners gains) that it's hard to measure let alone be able to associate it to a given rep range. There's too many factors involved.
My theory is that if you can find a basic routine with a rep range, no. of workouts per week that you enjoy doing, then you're on the right track. This way you have a better chance of sticking to it and then comes the consistency.
Ofcourse diet, rest and all the other factors come into play too, but if you're enjoying your training these should be easier to implement.
Have I gone off topic?
Phil
Way off topic I'm afraid mate. The point of this post is to discuss the effectivness of my proposed routine - not to all agree to disagree.
Everyone that reads this board is aware that AxB will produce gains almost for the rest of your life if you keep adding lbs to the bar and keep eating lots. thats not what I am interested in.
the block
12-03-2005, 15:49
for sacro. hyp. what one is really after is sufficient protein breakdown - right?
so whichever rep range gives you that... i'm sure Zatsiorsky (sp) mentioned a few studies to say that x reps gives the greatest breakdown.
why do 3 sets of x reps? maybe the cumulative effect of repeated breakdown is greater than a prolonged effort? :confused:
maybe the cumulative effect of repeated breakdown is greater than a prolonged effort?This is what I am arguing. I don't think it is. Esp' if you take int account that 1x30 is higher in terms of density than 3x10, AND can be perfromed with greater frequency.
the block
12-03-2005, 23:13
i'd say a more indepth look at what makes say 15 reps + swing towards the endurance side of things would help.
interesting
I think the thing you are neglecting here is years and years of anecdotal evidence. Forget the theoretical pseudo science. Guys, natural or not, have been getting huge for years training in the 5-12 rep range and even higher in some cases. Find me a guy that has got huge doing a routine along the lines you have described, and for that 1 guy, there would be hundreds of guys that got huge doing 5-12 reps.
Yeah but just because that works doesn't mean it works the best. We're not desputing that training in the 5-12 rep range will make you grow; the question is is it the quickest and most effective way?
Yeah but just because that works doesn't mean it works the best. We're not desputing that training in the 5-12 rep range will make you grow; the question is is it the quickest and most effective way?
If 1x30 was superior to 5-12 rep sets, we would know by now!
I don't like the proposed routine, quite simply because it neglects the rep range that most people make the best gains from. It goes from 1-3 reps on some workouts to 30 rep sets on others.
Yeah but just because that works doesn't mean it works the best. We're not desputing that training in the 5-12 rep range will make you grow; the question is is it the quickest and most effective way?
Yeah, I know that is what Rob is saying. But what I am saying is that people have been training for years, and trying different things. Therefore, if there was a consistently more effective way of growth than 5-12 reps, then it would have already been found and established.
If 1x30 was superior to 5-12 rep sets, we would know by now!
Spot on! What I was trying to say summed up in one sentence.
Bullshit. Simply because, following that logic:
We would know for sure weather it was 5 reps, 8 reps or 12 reps (I.e. EXACTLY) which rep range it is that is THE best.
Also, how on earth can you state that 5-12 is best, making no mention of the set range?
Or is 1x5 the same as 15x12 just because the reps happen to fall inbetween 5 and 12?
Give me some credit.
There is a distinct difference between 'tried and tested' and 'best bar none'.
Where is your evidence for 30 rep sets being the best?
1. You have no more evidence to support your theory than I do mine.
2. Read the origianl post again. If it is not clear why I have put forward this concept, then your pretty damn stupid.
3. Do not confuse the above (2.) with you not agreeing with me.
1. You have no more evidence to support your theory than I do mine.
You have no evidence.
On the other hand there is lots of anecdotal evidence to support the idea that 5-12 rep sets are most effective for hypertrophy.
So you picked option 2. Then.
Why is he stupid for?
You come up with some pseudo-crackpot theory for which there is zero evidence to support, he disagrees with it, and that equates to him being an idiot?
How does that work?
You picked option 2. as well then.
If you read that carefully you'd note I called him stupid for not realising why I have formed that opinion when I have pointed it out very plainly in his first spoken language in my VERY FIRST POST and refferd him back to it 3 times now.
No one is stupid for disagreing with me. You are stupid if you fail to see why I have drawn certain conclusions though.
You picked option 2. as well then.
If you read that carefully you'd note I called him stupid for not realising why I have formed that opinion when I have pointed it out very plainly in his first spoken language in my VERY FIRST POST and refferd him back to it 3 times now.
No one is stupid for disagreing with me. You are stupid if you fail to see why I have drawn certain conclusions though.
I can see kind of see why you have arrived at your conclusion. It is what appears to be logical to you. Therefore, your 'theory' is merely pseudoscience (defined as: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific). Just because it is logical to you, doesn't mean it is right. And all me and Mark have been trying to point out is that you can have all the pseudobabble in the world, but people have been getting huge for years without your methods, and they'll continue to do so.
Mark has zero authority on anything right now. By his own admission he is small, pot bellied and weak despite years of doing what you and he claim works.
You repeatedly insist that I have put my theory forward as fact [RE: My 'pseudo-science'] whereas if you read (I am REALLY getting sick of saying this) my original post you would realise that I am open to discussion.
The statements you and Mark have made are not discussion, just token BBer 'XYZ says it doesn't work so it doesn't work' type comments.
Lastly, hadn't you better credit Dictionary.com with the following sentence:
defined as: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific
Mark has zero authority on anything right now. By his own admission he is small, pot bellied and weak despite years of doing what you and he claim works.
You repeatedly insist that I have put my theory forward as fact [RE: My 'pseudo-science'] whereas if you read (I am REALLY getting sick of saying this) my original post you would realise that I am open to discussion.
The statements you and Mark have made are not discussion, just token BBer 'XYZ says it doesn't work so it doesn't work' type comments.
I haven't once said it won't work, just that there is nothing to say it will work other than your pseudoscience.
Lastly, hadn't you better credit Dictionary.com with the following sentence:
Yeah it is, here's the link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=pseudoscience
Mark has zero authority on anything right now. By his own admission he is small, pot bellied and weak despite years of doing what you and he claim works.
Well, that is you putting words in my mouth. I've never said that at all.
There is no need for abuse when your back's against the wall... :011:
Mark, I am not abusing you. Only yesterday on MSN (and on any number of other occasions) you have complained that 5x5 doesn't work, XYZ doesn't work, blah blah, your arms are still small, your belly is not lean, your STILL 13 stone odd.
And yet, you wont even entertain the idea that 30 reps is an ideal enviroment for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy even though you have no evidence to the contary.
Given the definition AP plagerised from Dictionary.com, then it is very clear that its not pseudo-science. As I have not presented this as fact.
Given the definition AP plagerised from Dictionary.com, then it is very clear that its not pseudo-science. As I have not presented this as fact.
Lol, plagerised?? I never knew that a definition of the word pseudoscience was of such vital importance to this argument that I needed to cite a reference for it!! I thought that by putting 'Defined as:' it would be clear that my definition was from an outside source.
What a waste of time typing that was.
Mark, I am not abusing you. Only yesterday on MSN (and on any number of other occasions) you have complained that 5x5 doesn't work, XYZ doesn't work, blah blah, your arms are still small, your belly is not lean, your STILL 13 stone odd.
Why is this about me? The size of my arms has no bearing on the quality of your routine.
the block
13-03-2005, 23:07
just to sum up as its clear some are getting the wrong end of the stick, whats at debate is:
is a prolonged effort (30 reps continuous) OR repeated efforts (5-12 reps or whatever of x sets) better for hypertrophy?
which is and why?
just to sum up as its clear some are getting the wrong end of the stick, whats at debate is:
is a prolonged effort (30 reps continuous) OR repeated efforts (5-12 reps or whatever of x sets) better for SARCOPLASMIC hypertrophy?
which is and why?Is the real question. But thanks.
Rob - they laughed at columbus when he said the world was round...:023:
Best bet is to give it a go mate and see if it works - some people can apply certain methods to good success than others...
Personally I haven't made my mind up on the theory yet, but I usually tend to go with the anecdotal evidence when it comes to this sort of thing.
i.e. if 10 people have had good success, then I might be successful when applying these methods also.
Hypertrophy is a funny thing and only really kicks into play considering all other variables are at optimum levels aswell
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.