I think 2 sets might be genuinely too much when you get proficient at reaching stage 2 failure (static). One set a week and I make more progress compared to 2 or 3 sets. Tested on various body parts over the course of several months. Mentzy was really onto something.
>>75736826describe how to reach the kind of failure that's necessary for the optimal results
>>75736948There exist 3 "types" of failure.>positive failureLet's say you are lifting a weight and you reach a point where you cannot lift it up anymore, you can only hold it in place. This is the first (positive) failure.>static failureThis is the second failure. Once you have reached positive you keep on pushing with all your might but the weight isn't budging. This can last for a good 10-20 second until the weight starts coming down if you are really giving it your all and is truly excrutiating.>negative failureThis is the third and last type of failure. After you have reached static failure and you cannot even hold the weight in place you have your buddy lift the weight and you slowly lower it down (or if unilateral exercise use your other arm/leg to assist). You do this until you cannot even lower the weight under control and it just rapidly drops.Some remarks. In my experience, negative failure is a bit too much and probably not necessary for optimal results. Also easy to get injured if you force negatives.When I say get proficient at reaching failure I mean that a lot of people stop not even at positive failure. When the speed of lifting starts slowing down and their muscles hurt a bit they terminate the set thinking they reached failure. This happened to me in the past when I thought I was done, but as I got better I realised I was leaving up to 3-4, sometimes even 5 (!) reps in reserve. Lifting to failure is a skill that has to be learn.I hope this helps someone, this kind of training has been revolutionary to me. One brutal all out set per muscle group once a week.Some people swear by a bit more volume, 2-3 sets or higher frequency, 2x week or so. Whatever works. For me 1 such set once a week seems to be the best combo.
>>75736948my tricep reaches stage 4 muscular failure when jerking off to japanese milfs
>>75736995how would that translate to let's say pullups or dips?>do as much as you can>once you can't do another rep you try to pull as hard as you can from a deadhang even if that effort doesn't really lift you up>then you jump up to the top position on the bar and try to stay there as long as you can ie lower yourself as slow as you can (negative failure)assuming static failure is enough, all you have to do is to push until you can't and then spend all your leftover energy on trying to get another rep, even if it's pretty much impossible?
>>75737011I forgot to mention some exercise have an inherent sticking point because the resistance isn't equal throughout the movement. Arthur Jones tried to rectify it by using cam systems in his machine.Dips and pullups are good examples because in the deadhang (for pullups) and bottom (dips) you need to produce a lot more force than in the middle or top of the movement. Although for pullups the top becomes harder again.But yeah, let's say you are doing pullups and stop at a deadhang on failure. Usually you will be able to pull yourself up an 2 or 3 inches before you stop and then you hold this position and keep pulling as hard as you can. This can actually last up to 20 even 30 seconds if you are really trying hard. Eventually you will drop down back into deadhang when it becomes too much. That's it, set finished.If you have a pulldown machine with a good cam that might be more efficient because you won't have a sticking point so failure can occur at pretty much any point in the movement.
>>75737058got it, thanks for a well formulated answer + I'm a huge proponent of HIT as well, I've been experimenting with drop sets/rest pauses, but overall I'm definitely sure doing several sets is obsolete
Being fully rested what really let me to lift more. 3-4rest days do that for me.I done Day:1: workout2: rest3: workout4: workout (performed worse, was muscle tired (can feel how muscle don't want to perform), I did some cardio on the same day 2-3h before the workout) My performance was worse. I don't think because of cardio but, my muscles where tired from days before.When I did 4days rest day, I was able to lift more each session, or do more reps.But I have reached my body limit since tendons and joints, need to get stronger for me to lift more.I don't feel pain but, body can't hold the form, and my joints are moving uncontrollably, is hard to hold 60kg weight and grip strength is getting in the way.I just need to find a way to make stronger elbows. Any ideas?I don't get sore after 1.5month time, so is harder to know when I'm rested now.Even doing 1x per week workout, and I didn't lost any progress, was even stronger on some lifts. I think fewer sessions, just lower the reps I could train my body to adapt too.DOMS, even, if not strong I think are there, when muscles are recovering even past 2months time, but I don't feel them the same way.
>>75737136You shouldn't need more than 2 rest days in a row, there's a reason why it's standard to workout 3 times a week and not more.
>>75737136Interesting. I usually stick to a 5-10 rep range aiming to hit failure in there somewhere. Theoretically you can make the same progress with higher reps up to 20-30 as long as you hit failure (because when you hit failure all of the motor units have been activated and fatigued) so higher reps might be easier on joints.However I find it harder to actually hit failure above say 12-15 reps because of the lactic acid buildup. The muscle starts to burn and I usually terminate the set because of that and not because I hit failure. But if you have good pain tolerance you can easily make progress with higher reps.
>>75737164For a beginner yeah, but once you start moving higher poundages you will get rekt on such a schedule. Roids can help, but that is a different story. I would say 4-5 days in between workouts is the bare minimum. Maybe 3 if you are doing a split routine.
>>75737171If you need more than 2 days, you're doing something retarded, If you're doing splits, you need no rest days.
>>75737174dyel or superhuman geneticsI wonder which is more likely...
>>75736995Interesting. I am good at not leaving any reps in reserve but I think I will add static failure now.
>>75737274I guess above average IQ is superhuman genetics because the whole point of doing splits is that you always focus on the muscle that's least sore.
>>75736948Intensity until you can no longer complete the lift at all
>>75737174do you have more than once central nervous system?does fatigue exist?>>75737978calcium ion related fatigue damages muscles and excess damage lowers your ability to recruit motor units of any muscle in your body
>>75736826didn't work for me
>>75738152there are more muscle groups in a body than there's days in a week, moron.
>>757368261)there's only one type of failure2)motor unit recruitment literally starts decreasing just before you reach failure3)causes you to fail at the end of a set is your motor unit recruitment falling off4)one set once a week is not enough to make muscle gains long term, it just isn't5) 3 sets once a week isn't even enough to make muscle gains long term6) you will spend the majority of the week atrophying, muscle fibers do not maintain their size days after last being activated and stimulated
>>75738183it doesn't matter what muscles you are training, if you are still under a motor unit recruitment deficit due to muscle damage induced CNS fatigue you will obviously stimulate whatever muscle you're training less than you would otherwise be capable of
>>75738237cool niggerbabble, 8 hours of sleep is enough
>>75738250nothing to do with sleep...
Mike Mentzer was never seen to do any split or even do "negative failure" or "static failure." Even though he talked about rest-pause, he wasn't seen by Roger Schwab who counted reps for him for the year before the 1980 Mr. Olympia. He did however do one set to failure per exercise. In fact he did a three day per week full body routine as Arthur Jones Prescribed just like his brother Ray and Casey Viator. The exact routine:>Leg Press, superset>Leg Extension, superset>Squats>Leg Curls>Calf Raises>Pec Flyes, superset >Incline Press>Nautilus Pullover, superset>Reverse Grip Pulldown>Lateral Raises, superset>Shoulder Press>Shrugs>Straight Bar Curl, superset>Chin ups>Press down, superset>DipsMinimal rest between exercises. He would get the routine done in 45 minutes.The interview with Schwabhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67bJX6U-4d4
>>75738203>4)one set once a week is not enough to make muscle gains long term, it just isn't>5) 3 sets once a week isn't even enough to make muscle gains long term>6) you will spend the majority of the week atrophying, muscle fibers do not maintain their size days after last being activated and stimulatedPseudo-science. One set per week is enough to at least maintain muscle mass. Especially if it's to failure. And no. That study you're going to refer to where they literal put a person's limb in a cast for a few days so they couldn't use it in any manner what-so-ever is not valid for this discussion.
>>75738299seems like a rather productive routine, definitely better than the "heavy duty" stuffresting plenty between exercises would probably be better, also some exercises are rather redundant(leg presses with squats, chinups wwith reverse grip pulldowns) and supersets should be removed
>>75738321>one set per week is enough to at least maintain muscle massalready read through the entire literature on thisit isn't>Especially if it's to failure.not really a factor>And no. That study you're going to refer to where they literal put a person's limb in a cast for a few days so they couldn't use it in any manner what-so-ever is not valid for this discussion.how do muscles grow from training? can we discuss this at least?what is the driver of hypertrophy?once we determine that it is mechanical tension experienced by individual muscle fibers that makes exercise stimulate growth then everything starts to make sensealso we don't even need to look at those(it's not just one study btw), just read hypertrophy maintenance and detraining studies, 1 set once a week is not enough to grow and we have multiple studies showing 0 growth when resistance trained lifters cut their volume to ~3 sets per muscle group once a weekhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21131862/
>>75738203>>75738330>>75738465What should my program look like, Beardsleyanon?
>>75738493this looks pretty good >>75738299but with these adjustments:-1 working set close to failure on each exercise, no need to reach failure, 1-2 RIR is preferable-keep reps low(around 4-8 reps)-remove the super sets, leg presses. reverse grip pulldowns, shrugs, incline presses-add in a flat press and an upper back rowrest plenty between sets-if you want you can split the workout into 2 sessions, upper/lower, each 2-3x a week or just do full body 2-3x a week-you can substitute some exercises for some equivalent ones if you don't have the equipment for it or due to preference
>>75738465>it isn't>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21131862/Only applies to old people. Since you're a pseud, I'll help you. Post the DOI, especially if the full text is available there. If not, look for the full copy uploaded to researchgate before posting the pubmed abstract.>https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/fulltext/2011/07000/exercise_dosing_to_retain_resistance_training.7.aspxYou can post abstracts all you want and pretend they mean what you want them to even though they say something different. Even moreso, for someone who isn't a pseud and actually understands statistics, you'll realize that the average result doesn't hold for the vast majority of people even when assuming normality. When you in addition understand that the result of a muscle biopsy need not represent what's going on in the rest of the muscle, we also have another reason to question the results. There can be quite a bit of variance between samples. This is why wherever possible, many samples are required from a single source in order to ensure. It's not pragmatic or even a good idea to remove large swaths of someone's muscle for a single study like this. However, only one sample person is like taking a vial of water from a lake and then asserting that it represents the entire lake. Muscle biopsies are not statistically valid for this reason. After all, it may certainly be the case that the for the majority of individuals, enough to skew the averages, the 16 week biopsy was taken from an area that just had a higher concentration of myofribrils on average than during some of the subsequent biopsies. These studies are very questionable just from the statistical side of things much like every other exercise science study. A single such measurement from single individual is sufficient for an opinion poll. It's not sufficient for determining whether or not that individual, or even many individuals should get a specific effect.
>>75738465>>75738545On the other hand, the fact that strength was maintained at least in the 1/9 volume group implies that myofibrils were maintained at least in the young lifters. Myofibrils after neurological adaptions have occurred are the primary source of increases in strength. As low volume will not yield more neurological adaptations, the myofibrils therefore are maintained.
>>75738545>Only applies to old peopleit doesn'ttake your own advice
>>75738552everyone knows strength adaptations last for far longer than muscle fiber size, the 1/9 volume group did 3 sets once a week for their quads, they didn't grow even a little young or old>the myofibrils therefore are maintainedmoving the goalposts now?1 set once a week isn't enough to grownot even 3 sets once a week is enough to grow
>>75738564I already address the biopsies. They are not enough to draw a conclusion from. As they are performed, it's like assuming the content of a lake based upon what you see in a vial of water. You should also read your own graph. For the young in the 1/9 volume group, at week 32 is the only samples were had a decrease generally. Meanwhile the week 48 biopsy for type II is about the same as for the week 16 sample. We the week 48 for 1/9 volume group is greater than the week 32 biopsy. If it applied to the young and biopsies. We also see a similar trend for the elderly in the 1/9 volume group. 16 weeks is a peek. Then week 32 is a decline. And then it goes back up again by week 48. Higher than week 32. Though for the old it is still less than week 16. Of course, we still have the reality that a single sample from each individual and the average of the samples is not meaningful. Since a single sample per person is not adequate to determine the changes in the person's fine muscular structure throughout an entire muscle, the averages of those single samples are certainly not meaningful in general. Take my advice pseud.
>>75738465>>one set per week is enough to at least maintain muscle mass>already read through the entire literature on this>it isn'tIt is. I've seen it firsthand. Your studies are garbage. The researchers and subjects all train like pussies.
>>75738593>moving the goalposts now?Measurement of strength is quite different from a singular biopsy. The maximum leg extension for example is a cumulative effect. Whereas the biopsy is just whatever you get from a tiny tiny tiny piece of a muscle. It's like the difference between measuring heat and measuring temperature. Heat is the total kinetic energy in a particle soup. Temperature is localized and at best reflective of the average kinetic energy of particles within that region. Measuring strength is like measuring heat. It applies to the entire muscle. The biopsy is more like measuring temperature which in many cases only applies to a small region at best and you generally will not be able to tell the heat of an object from it. You need multiple samples from a single object to tell what its heat is. >1 set once a week isn't enough to grow>not even 3 sets once a week is enough to growRepeating this over and over again is not enough >muscle fiber sizeIs different from myofibril size as muscle fiber size involves the sarcoplasm as well which is fluid, glycogen, creatine, and everything else that needs to be stored in the muscle cells for its use. The study attempts to measure myofibril density/size in particular. Myofribils are the contractile organelles within a muscle cell.>strength adaptationsWhen neurological adaptations are maxed out, all "strength adaptations" are related to myofibril size. Leverages tend to be constant unless you gain or lose a lot of fat so we can generally ignore it. If strength adaptations are maintained and given that you can max out neurological adaptations fairly quickly, the only thing left is that strength is maintained because the total amount of myofibrils is the same.
