Just. One. Set.
>>76936022no, doesn't work.
>>76936022Just one hit of meth *dies*
>>76936022I think I'll do two
>>76936022One. Man. Let.
>>76936087Drop that weight right now.
>>76936584OWIE!!!! MY FOOT!
>>76936022Even if it did work, I would still do more. The 1-1.5 hours in the gym four times a week is the most I am around other people. I get fucking lonely sometimes man.
While I'm a big fan of Mentzer it's not really doable with all excercises.For one legs need volume and going to true failure on a set of squats is a recipe for paralysis or an early grave.Also biceps are weak and give up before they are properly taxed.
>>76937322hehe
>>76936087I do 2 usually. I'm strong, and big, and fat.Don't be me.
>>76937429Squats are such a fucking terrible exercise in general, but all compounds suck on hit. Just use machines.
>>76937454I would but I only got dbs as I'm /homegym/ in an apartment.Squats are literally the only leg excercise I can do given what I have for equipment and space.
>>76937454post body
>>76936022And a shit ton of roids & meth.
>>76937500Do you have a dip belt? Start with something like 50 lbs on the belt to get used to the movement. make sure the bottom of the plate is above your knees. Either 50 lb dumbell or 5 10's so you can actually get it there. Put your heels on something that's about 4-6" taller. Then do sissy squats. Focus on moving the knees forward. Not on moving the torso backwards. The matrix dodge is not the best mechanical position. Properly done it should more resemble what Tom Platz does on the hack squat machine. Put your hand on something for balance. Doing sissy squats in conjunction with squats will get you the best results. You can also try reverse nordics. Some people say they're hard but when I started doing them I could do 12 reverse nordics. At that time I could only squat 225 for 10. So they're not really that hard. Just hard if you were only used to fucking around with light weight on the leg extension machine. With reverse nordics however, you remain in hip extension. Bodyweight is a good place to start with that. For hamstrings you're probably already doing RDL or deads. Nordic curls is a good option. You don't have to buy anything for that. If you have a rack, barbell, bench and pillow, you can just set up your own "nordic curl bench" to keep your knees on a soft pad instead of hurting them on hard ground. End of the bench just past a barbell. Hooks set to where there's about an inch at most between your heals when your tibia is flat on the bench. Pillow should fit between there and tighten up the space. Make sure to load the barbell with 200-300 lbs at least or whatever you need to keep the bar stationary and make sure the hooks are mounted on the opposite side of the rack so that the bar only moves into the rack. If you can do them that's great. If not, you can just do the negatives to build up some strength.
>>76936080>doesn't work.Does. Two are better if you only do 2x/week but you can do one set 7x and get gains. Everyone knows the first set is 75% of max, but they think another or two more is better to make sure they get to max...What they don't think about is fatigue. 75% every day is the real max.
>>76938141>first set is 75% of maxIf you're training to muscular failure, by definition, you're doing an XRM where X is the number of reps. You're not doing 75% of max. You're doing 100% of max for that number of reps.
>>76938142I'm talking about maximum growth stimulus. The calculus is between that and fatigue.
>>76938141>Everyone knows the first set is 75% of max,Never heard of this in my life. Proof?
>>76937429I think most people have absolutely 0 reason to do exercises that might seriously fuck them up if the form slips or something happens. This is why weighted calisthenics + low weight open chain exercises are the GOAT - in the worst case you'll get a golfer's elbow or some other trivial shit and your spine should be mostly intact.
>>76938211not that anon and I think it's more 70% but there's a study you'll easily find if you google the topic.But you can also just infer logically - you're already aware lifting has diminishing returns and you can't triple your gains by doing 9 sets instead of 3.Like that anon says, you calculate stimulus against fatigue/cost
>>76938876You need to train low back somehow
>>76938887>But you can also just infer logicallyLogically, why can't I get to 100% with one? Biologically, what is happening on the second set that isn't happening on the first?
>>76938876>>76938896>lower backInverted Rows with rings might be enough.
>>76938936It's too complex to write it all. Your CNS doesn't recruit all motor units immediately, every further rep causes more mechanical damage, synergists are tired and help less etc.Imagine plucking a chicken. Your first grab gets most of the feathers but you don't have the dexterity to grab them all, and you get the 70% that come out easily but some are a little stronger.Second grab gets almost all, but from there you need to pluck them each individually.
>>76938981That's a surprisingly good explanation anon, are you a teacher?
>>76938981So just use a lighter weight.If you take a weight that would be appropriate for a warmup, like ~50%, and you take that to failure, then over the course of the set you've recruited every motor unit. There's no reason that the "feather grabs" should have some arbitrary period of rest between them.
I worked out 4 days this week but I want to go again today
>>76938989No, I'm literally for the abolishment of schools lol>>76939003No.First, going to failure does not mean that every unit has been recruited.Second, if you wanted to follow that train of thought, you'd have to do dropset after dropset until you're lifting 500g, but at that point other variables like lactic acid come into play.Third, the rest time isn't arbitrary. If You want maximum damage, you should wait like 15 minutes until your CNS can recruit the maximum number of units again.Just as with the amount of sets, rest time is a calculation of stimulus vs. cost (time in this instance).But again, it's more complex. Imagine having a thousand motor units and needing 500 of them to lift the weight. Each rep damages some, each rep uses up the glycogen of others, each (myo)pause changes the composition acain. You need a certain number of dice rolls to hit them all. Otherwise you could just argue one single max rep is enough to hit them all. And that's also why this strategy works better for advanced lifters (whose CNS makes good use of singles) but not for noobs who do a one rep max that barely recruits any units.
>>76939028>If You want maximum damage, you should wait like 15 minutes until your CNS can recruit the maximum number of units again.Really?? Are 4h workouts better then?
>>76938896roman chair back extensions - I'd count that as weighted calisthenics, since the main load comes from your bodyweight and the extra weight can be whatever - backpack, vest, barbell
>>76939028>Second, if you wanted to follow that train of thought, you'd have to do dropset after dropset until you're lifting 500gYou don't have to do any dropsets at all. They're not required.>If You want maximum damage, you should wait like 15 minutes until your CNS can recruit the maximum number of units again.Muscle damage is not required. There's no reason to make that the objective of your training.And why should you want to recruit the maximum number of units again for the muscle that you just used? What biological changes occur in the muscle from the second set that did not occur in the first?>Otherwise you could just argue one single max rep is enough to hit them all. The exact opposite of what I argued.Did you even read what I wrote?
>>76938981>>76939081>Biologically, what is happening on the second set that isn't happening on the first?>Your CNS doesn't recruit all motor units immediatelyThis is true for every set, including the first.>every further rep causes more mechanical damage,This is true for every set, including the first.>synergists are tired and help lessThis is true for every set, including the first.
>>76938211If it wasn't for the low outlier at 6/wk, frequency would be all the rage.
>>76939255why the fuck did these nerds not evenly distribute the frequency? Does this suggest a lot of people asked to do 6 sets were quitting because it was too much work for them?
>>76939289Maybe a meta-analysis and most studies stop at 3.
>>76939140>>76939081>>769390811) If your logic is that one set to failure is enough by virtue of using lighter weight, then by the same logic you'd need drop sets. Otherwise, what's the point of using lighter weight over heavier?2) Yes, muscle damage is required. That's literally how hypertrophy works. It's the reason you can gain muscle even with just static stretches. If you deny that, there's no point in talking.3) You have it exactly the wrong way around: The biological processes are exactly the same in both sets. But they don't happen everywhere at once>>76939140Yes, which is why there is no big difference between doing two sets or one set with a drop set, or one set with myo reps.The point in two sets is allowing recruitment of more units by letting your CNS, lactic acid etc. regenerate than if you just trucked onIf you just wanna be right, I don't care, do as many sets as you want I couldn't give a fuck, it's your time
>>76939255Well if there's dots on a graph, that's proof enough for me.Where is this actually from?>>76939289It's referring to a frequency of workouts per week, which has nothing to do with any other comment in this thread.
>>76938133I'll have to look into these. Definitely want to add dips to my routine.
>>76939300>Where is this actually from?house of hypertrophy video.
>>76939299>then by the same logic you'd need drop sets. Otherwise, what's the point of using lighter weight over heavier?You don't.The point is that there's some minimum number of reps to ensure that your cns is warmed up. I thought we would agree on that. Doing just one really heavy rep isn't enough to do the job.I have no idea what the minimum number of reps is to be fully warmed up and I haven't found a study that actually explores this. Looking at how powerlifters warm up on competition day, I'd wager it's between 10 to 30, depending on the person and the exercise.Muscle damage is a side effect. If it were the cause, then more muscle damage would always equal more growth, but that isn't true.>Yes, which is why there is no big difference between doing two sets or one set with a drop set, or one set with myo reps.Yes, and there's also no big difference between those three things and just taking a lighter weight all the way to failure, once.>allowing recruitment of more units by letting your CNS, lactic acid etc. regenerate than if you just trucked onHow are you certain that you're using more units? You could instead just be reusing units that you already used earlier.
>>76939299>Yes, muscle damage is required. That's literally how hypertrophy works. It's the reason you can gain muscle even with just static stretches. If you deny that, there's no point in talking.Damage has nothing to do with it. It is mechanical tension on type2 fibers that does. If you're still scratching your head as to why static weighted stretching or isometrics don't do much is because it has to be repped to release significant amounts of mtor. The molecule that initiates hypertrophy. This was a problem for a long time in anatomy and kinesiology they know with absolute certainty a mechanical signal had to be translated to a chemical signal and there had to be someway of sensing it. So they had engineers and computer modelers take a whack at like what would be the most likely structure to perform this and they thought it would be little mechanosensors and a sensory mesh on fibers themselves. Then they looked where they said they probably would be and boom there they were.As to why it has to be repped it's because tension peaks in the rep and their limits to how much mtor can be released from a single mechanical signal probably as some kind of rate limiter on growth. Same deal with why it has to be after type1 fibers have handed off most of the work to type 2fibers and why type1 don't hypertrophy from the same kind of loading.
>>76939255>If it wasn't for the low outlier at 6/wkOnly the one outlier? What about all the people that lost muscle? There are a lot of points below 0 on that graph.
>>76939341>>76939335>>76939333>>76939303>>76939300>>76939299>>76939299>>76939292>>76939289>>76939255https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIq7lGDbUoE
>>76939455An outlier is unusual. If there are many instances it isn't an outlier. And there are points below 0 for every frequency. In short, idk what your post is for.
>>76939467>An outlier is unusual. If there are many instances it isn't an outlierThat's not what I was getting at. I was not classifying all those other points as outliers. I was pointing out that that one outlier data point is not the only reason why high frequency is not "all the rage".>idk what your post is forFor some portion of the population, a frequency of even once per week is too much.
>>76939482>For some portion of the population, a frequency of even once per week is too much.Fat lazy loser dyels.
