Is training volume really the most important factor in muscle hypertrophy as science tells us? Should i do 1000-rep arm workout like Smaev?
If you are solely interested in useless hypertrophy fluff muscle that's all show and no go.
>>77013539
>>77013544Hypertrophy programs builds strength
>>77013539volume, weight, form, tension, all matter. but most retards here never study it, never practice it, and hence, never get the result. some live happy with just slight improvements. another thing is food, 95% of /fit doesn't understand why some people are eating healthy. it all comes down to playing with your insulin sensitivity, especially if ur a natty, but like i said, most ppl who sharpen their swords don't know why they sharpen their swords.
Forearms recover very quickly which is why not only is it easy to do a lot of reps with high weight on it but is actually the right thing to do since it's stupid to try to do the actual 10 reps weight
>>77013546>500 reps biceps workouts are reasonableDoctor Mike Israetel, Professor of Exercise Science
>>77013549Yeah, sure.
>>77013555>Forearms recover very quicklyYou never done heavy negatives with hand grippers?
>>77013562NTA but I do every other day and yeah my forearms recover quickly compared to pretty much any other muscle.
>>77013569Curious. What's your grip strength?
>>77013559Even when i did 3x20 playing football i gained strength. Average hypertrophy lift is 4x10
>>77013572No clue honestly but I have these grippers from Amazon that say 200lb (very much doubt that) and can do about 40 reps without stopping. No one else I’ve handed it to can even close it all the way
>>77013585>can do about 40 reps without stopping.So you don't actually do any heavy negatives if i understood correctly, you just do light pump work.
>>77013539Long term gains have never been properly studied Progressive overload works continuously for everyone You should always be lifting more weight more times at all costs, this usually requires 3-6 rep range and a routine centered around the big bb liftsAnd some longterm general advice, don't listen to a single word this guy says ever
>>77013952>at all costsSo you should like do adrenaline shot if you failed to lift heavier weight/do more reps?
>>77013544>>77013549>>77013559>>77013584Their is no separate difference in hypertrophy and strength training. You'll get bigger by getting stronger.
>>77013964There is. Muscles won't get enough stimulus to grow if you just do 1-rep maxes despite high increase in strength. Optimal growth starts from 5 reps.
>>77013964https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHfR6feHFks
>>77013959Eat more, take herbal hormone cortisol suppressants, run programs like Hepburn's or 5/3/1Only cut on occasion when you stop progressing and cut as quickly as possible to minimize muscle loss and maximize time at a surplus
>>77013562I dont give a shit about your gay BDSM tools, i do the essentials aka getting something heavy and rolling your fingers around it, then pumping your thumb then switching grip etc etc
>>77013972This is actually bro scienceIn the short term, you might be correct, but long term at a surplus, a strength trainer will gain more lean mass than a lightweight trainerIt has to do with hormones
>>77013973Bro just pumps his muscles to that they get all das roids from the blood.
>>77013972>>77013973https://youtu.be/MJ6MB7AzWkg?si=lqF3OLm4cX5QBgXY>Muscles won't get enough stimulus to grow if you just do 1-rep maxesWhy? If you work up to a single rep max twice a week on squats, every Monday and every Thursday, and your max goes up, are you seriously going to tell me you're not going to get bigger legs from that?
>>77013989Is this you?
>>77013984A murderous set of curls with drop sets and assisted reps until you're crying for mommy probably feels more stressful on the body than a 500lbs squat double performed with perfect form focused on explosiveness. If training like a powerlifter was the way to become huge bodybuilders would train like powerlifters. The current Olympia prize is $1M or something like that plus a similar salary bump from sponsors.
>>77013989>strength training=hypertrophyBased advice from natty king. >are you seriously going to tell me you're not going to get bigger legs from that?You gonna get bigger legs but It's very suboptimal. Just not enough time under tension for strong muscle fibers.
>>77013539>The rootless doctologist ruminated on the self percieved genius of his take down video of the 1000 rep arm work out. "1000 reps, preposterous", he spat. "It's just wrong to inflate numbers you never actually hit. How can you even lie like..." Suddenly Mike Israelitel froze, his finger trembling above the mouse button, the cursor parked still on the upload button. "I can't...!" His mind began to swirl violently as beads of nervous kosher pickle juice sprouted on his forehead. Out of the maelstrom visions lurched forth: maternity wards, soccer teams, swimming pools. These visions evaporated and gave way to darker ones: lancaster bombers burning women and children alive, men being kicked in the testicles and vomitting repeatedly while being forced to answer interrogations, an apple never thrown over a fence, a temple of gangsters being levelled as punishment for their crimes. Was it right for him to be critical of inflated numbers? Of course not, what was he thinking!? There must be another angle to come at this. Doctologist Mike set up his camera and began rerecording.
>>77014024Kek.
>>77013995of course>>77014005doesn't negate the point>Just not enough time under tension for strong muscle fibers.Ok, so if time under tension is what matters, why do anything under 15 reps? Why use a fast concentric? This doesn't make any sense. If you increase the level of immediate tension on the muscle, even if it's for a few seconds, that's still an incredible potent stimulus. Also, if you're lifting HEAVY like truly heavy, that will be slow and therefore you'll be experiencing a serious time under tension.'Hypertrophy' is just an effect of training, it's not a separate thing you want to or really can only train for. If you want to become seriously stronger, bigger, and whatever else. Fuck calculating reps, sets, weight, rest time, and only focus on bar speed and the speed that you're moving the weight. Because that's the ultimate determination of if what you're doing is simulative.
>>77014000Most body builders get their initial mass training like powerlifters. Not even training "like" them but actually competing in it. Arnold included. Quit handing out dog shit advice, not everyone is interested in being 180 pound panty waist.
>>77014033You seem to be fairly new. >why do anything under 15 reps?Because you achieve effective reps (reps that are close to failure when you activate high-threshold muscle fibers most prone to growth) faster while accumulating less muscular fatigue. There's still case uses for rep ranges even higher than 15 reps, but it's outside the scope of this discussion.>Why use a fast concentric?Fast concentric is just a product of strong neural signal for muscle activation necessary for activation of high-threshold muscle fibers. >if you're lifting HEAVY like truly heavy, that will be slow and therefore you'll be experiencing a serious time under tension.Yes, but it's still suboptimal. Compare 1 single 100RM to 3 sets of 10-7 reps, in each of which you get 5 effective, slow reps.
>>77014035Many bodybuilders get their initial training playing football. Ed Coan started training as a bodybuilder. Many powerlifters started lifting because they thought muscles looked cool and many bodybuilders became bodybuilders because they thought it was the only way to make money by going to the gym.It's lifting things up and down there's obviously a huge overlap in beginners. You don't need to be elite strong to be elite big, and you don't need to be elite big to be elite strong. The more advanced you get the more you need to focus and specialize this is true for anything in life.
>>77014035>Most body builders get their initial mass training like powerlifters. I wonder why they stop.
>>77014049Guess how football guys train
>>77014053Taking roids and going to failure
>>77014052Because you get the flowery end results switching it up. It's simple. You can be big and worry about bicep peaks later or you can be a small beef jerky boy worrying about your bicep peaks. The concept of building a foundation is lost on you nerds. Powerlifting is just one way of doing it but it works
>>77014024
>>77014043You didn't read what I posted you silly billy.>but it's still suboptimal>Compare 1 single 100RM to 3 sets of 10-7 reps, in each of which you get 5 effective, slow reps.Okay, so let's go back to the squatting twice a week example:>Monday, max back squat is 495 lb.>first 4 sets are warmups>next 3 sets are using 450, 460 and 470 all for singles>do a single set with 485, that's your max for the day, it was very slow on the concentric and felt truly heavy and like you couldn't get another CLEAN rep, it was a total 0 RIR set>Repeat again on Thursday, this time you get to 490 and it felt like the 485 on MondayNow, let's take into account your comparison:>All 3 sets are done in that 1 to 2 RIR range to get the 5 effective repsOkay, but in terms of more simulative reps, what was greater? The harder sets done on Monday and Thursday with a greater load or the lesser load but higher volume sets? Well, it's pretty much the same. (Also, how about the warm up sets on the squatting twice a week example, because that actually does add volume to or 'muh time under tension' if you're doing sets of 2 to 3 reps to begin with.) The original argument is that doing heavy daily maxes and 1 rep maxes wouldn't build muscle effectively (whatever the fuck that means because if you're building muscle you're building muscle lol) and the point being made was in support of TuT which is meaningless if you don't account for load or mechanical tension.
>>77013973unless your also roiding these videos are malicious and deceptive content to natty strength.Reminder : BBs are a lifestyle choice, and their lifestyle is always taken out of context
>>77014086It doesn't matter if you're natty obviously you're not going to go crazy with the weights 7 days before a bodybuilding competition. It's still funny seeing the best bodybuilder in the world shaking 10lb dbs.
>>77014082>first 4 sets are warmupsYou're not supposed to go close to failure on warm-ups, anon. >The original argument is that doing heavy daily maxes You can't train heavy like this everyday unlike when using lighter loads, if you can you're not really maxing. Also the problem with compounds is that you can't push every involved muscle to failure, there's always some limiting muscle that leaves others relatively understimulated.
>>77013539Is his head shaped like that from yarmulke erosion?
>>77014099> Also the problem with compounds is that you can't push every involved muscle to failureYou don't need to.
>>77013555How to avoid forearm tendonitis? Even doing only 8 sets of bicep curls weekly gave me forearm tendonitis. My whole body is pretty injury prone for some reason though
>>77013557He's being way too nice at this point. And it hurts both accuracy and funniness
>>77013539Posting either one of the gay midget lovers nippard or israetel should be a two week ban.
>>77013539Yes.I've experimented with many systems of progression but the most effective and foolproof method is to use overall volume as the main variable. For an exercise with a specific weight I will simply keep a tally for how many reps I did in that session. Once I hit my threshold for reps, I increase the weight.I will vary the rep goal on occasion for a unique challenge, so instead of going for 50 reps I might go for 20 reps or 200 reps, which will require more or less weight, respectively. 1000 reps is way too many though, pushing that far is unlikely to do much other than fatigue the shit out of you with a weight that's too light to be productive. It will be a big mental challenge if that's what you're into though. This is braindead simple and that's why I like it. No need to worry about the technicalities of sets, reps, effective reps, proximity to failure, optimal this and that I JUST DON'T CARE! As long as the number goes up then progression has happened.
>>77014795His career has been a real rollercoaster ride. Labelling himself a doctor was like sticking a shotgun into an accordian tube pointed back at his own head though, he never knew he was only shooting himself.
>>77014839Too soon bro, they're still finding new victims all the time. For all you know Mike's nan could have died like that when she was eight.
>>77014000>Training the smallest muscle group is somehow more system heavy than a lift that takes the whole system to complete Kys retard holy shit
Dorian Yates says volume is bullshit and he said exactly what ive always assumedYou trigger muscle growth with a few sets, anything after that doesnt do shit, youre just burning calories
>>77013952I want that raw steak on the bathroom floor in the bathroom
>>77013984
>>77013539It can be. If you're 4 rir on everything you'll have to do like 40 sets a week to see anything from it.Effective rep model is just better overall for putting volume, intensity and fatigue in one box and having that be something you can use either in planning your training or just adjusting your training on the fly.
>>77014875Kekked
>>77013972Your argument would hold weight if people only ever did one rep maxes
>>77013549science based source??
>>77016392You should do 1 rep maxes (or at least doubles / triples) if you want to increase your strength. If you're training only with 5 reps and above you're not really strength training. And i understand you can do low-rep sets as well as high-rep sets, and that it is in fact how most strength-oriented people (me included) train. However it is still suboptimal for hypertrophy to only doing sets of 5 reps and above, since low-rep sets accumulate as much fatigue (if not more) as high-rep sets while providing less effective reps.
>>77016409>You should do 1 rep maxes (or at least doubles / triples) if you want to increase your strengthI know, I told some slinky boy here that he should try to push to 1rm every session and got called a retard kek>training only with 5 reps and above you're not strength trainingNot entirely true, if I can do 90% of my 1rm for reps that definitely increases strength, but of course it's pushing that extra inch, not just physically but also mentally, that makes a big difference in the long run
>>77013539>50 setsWas a specialization routine for legs. Barely any difference between that and the other approaches tested. A gigantic waste of time. Also everything else had to take a back seat to accommodate the volume. >>77013546So why does he still have 17" arms? Even on that much gear, smaller arms than some natties?
>>77013539lmao the basedance is in: if fatique and the need for recovery weren't a thing more volume would be better
>>77013972>>77016392>>77016409>>77016413I only do 1rms and I'm building muscle
>>77016439Because he's 5'4
>>77016459No you don't.
>>77013539>>77013546 the sciencefag is speaking the truth for once
>>77016398You wont read any studies i link
>>77018740won't test cuz you can't provide
>>77018824If you care about the topic you will have done research already surely. No one who wants to be healthy lurks 4chan hoping someone posts scientific data
>>77013539Yakub McDonald has buckbroken the SBL circlejerk a decent amount of times, if you are interested in finding an answer go check one of his talks addressing the volume fiasco.
