In 2026, isnt it funny that all the stuff propagated on here for years on end up being a lie or completely contrary to science?>isolation movements for beginners are vital>Bulking doesnt net a single gram of more muscle gain and is unnecessary. >5x5 three times per week is utterly retarded for growth. >training to failure has literally no benefit, 1 to 2 reps in reserve nets the exact same adaption without additional fatigue>high volume workouts are a complete waste of time, you get all the adaptation you need off of 2, max 3 sets and progressively overloading. Doing 4-5 sets of multiple exercises for the same muscle is 100% retarded.> high reps are a meme. No objective benefit whatsoever going over 8 reps.> you dont need to squat. You dont need to deadlift. You dont even need to flat bench. Leg press is more stable and superior for growth in almost every way if you're a beginner. Hip thrusts and hamstring curls are more effective for growing the same muscles. A stable chest press machine is even more effective because you can go closer to failure without being constrained by technique. You guys literally got played. For years.Mainly the volumetards. I cant begin to imagine how retarded you had to be to believe you needed to do 40 sets a week or whatever or that volume is what drives hypertrophy. It is completely counter to any and all scientific evidence. You literally get better results with just 4 sets per week. Lol.
ok mentztard
>>77403599You're mostly right, only on volume are you wrong and that's not necessarily your fault. There is no such thing as "junk volume," that's just slang for having ventured beyond strength & hypertrophy range, which is retarded. Especially because that muscular endurance range can help your muscles be better at managing energy use, stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis, which does benefit the strength & hypertrophy range with better recovery.
10 to 20 sets per muscle group per week1 to 2 reps in reserveProgressive overload Pick exercises that target the target muscle (it should be the one that fails first)250 kcal surplus is plenty for a bulkThat’s literally it. Yet retarded powersharting routines and big surplus are still shilled here. At this point I think it’s even worse than on Reddit.
>>77403610t. nogains
>>77403623>Yet retarded powersharting routines and big surplus are still shilled hereThis! So glad there's someone else on this board that understands the surplus doesn't need to equate to gaining whole fucking pounds of fat. It's all fat fucks that use powershitter routines as an excuse to not change their diets.
>>77403623The aesthstics people on fit are just dumn. Volumetards here on /fit/ think you need to do 3 sets of incline, flat, decline, and flyes to grow your chest. They think soreness is gains.
>>77403639Post body
>>77403599having patience and going at your own pace are long lost ideas and falls on deaf ears for the vast majority of the population. this goes far beyond fitness, but just about anything in life
>>77403599>>Bulking doesnt net a single gram of more muscle gain and is unnecessary.I'm not sure what you're implying here. Doesn't net you a single gram more muscle gain compared to if you're eating at your TDEE? Are you some "maingainer" weirdo or do you not consider a 200-300 calorie surplus to mean that you are bulking?
>>77403718>a 200-300 calorie surplusThat’s maingaining
>>77403732that's bulking. That's how the word is used. Learn the words before you become a contrarian about it.
>>77403599source?
>>77403623everyone with a triple digit iq knew powersharters were using bulking as a way to cope with eating like complete shit
>>774035991. Yes2. Wrong3. Kind of, yes4. Wrong5. again, kind of right, usually higher volume isn't required6. I would set the cut off at 12 for most exercises, but mostly true7. Wrong
>Bulking doesnt net a single gram of more muscle gain and is unnecessary.that was the first time I put on muscle so you're full of shit didnt read the rest
Agreed. And r/fit's track record is similarly horrible. Doing literally the opposite of what was said here or there would yield a decent workout strategy.Nitpicks: You do need a slight caloric surplus to gain muscle, at least past the beginner stage. No reason to go above 200 calories or so. As for the reps, some movements work better with light weight, like lateral raises. I do sets up to 15 as it works well. So, since we know reps between 3-30 grow muscle, we can account for taste as an explanation of why you could go above 8.
Just do starting strength or stronglifts. This is a bunch of statements that don't mean anything without the context of a training plan or program (which conveniently no one provides because you need to buy their program or coaching). Its like you are playing madlibs with fitness. Just say progressive overload and x number of sets like its magic. Any "difficult" to learn exercise you don't actually need to do.
>>77403599Post bodyNo, I am not dying for IsraelNo, I am not eating flesh or "meat"No, I did not read any of your postYes, you are a faggotYes, end of thread
>>77404074>300 CALORIES SURPLUS>BULKINGYOU HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO LITTLE GUY,BEING IN A THOUSANS SURPLUS ENSURES GROWTH,>>77404193THEY ARE ALL BIGGER AND STRONGER THAN YOU,WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF IT,SUCH A SMARTY PANTS,TRY MOVE SOME OF THEIR NUMBERS,WHEN A PAIR OF WET SOCKS WEIGHS MORE THAN YOU,HEHEHEEHHE
You gave a list of specifications for a behavior that a program should have, but its not what you should actually do in the gym. Starting strength and stronglifts actually hit most of the points you said. What happens is people read this shit and show up to the gym thinking they are "applying progressive overload" and "going to close to failure". They never bother to learn any exercise that may require them to learn to move slightly different because it "does not matter". Then they "have trouble" bulking past 180 pounds being like 5'10 or taller, and give up after a few years. At no point did they follow a specific set of instructions (like an actual program) for say 9 months at a time. Starting strength and stronglifts are programs that both meet almost all of behaviors of a good program that you described. But then you will try to make fun of people for running them. By the way, you won't find anyone at your gym whose legs or chest have gone from not big to big only using the leg press or chest press machine. Even the ones that grunt all of time going close to failure on the hack squat. Leanish over 200 pounds. Anyone under 200 pounds is not a man. Then to top it off, in the picture, you show the unstable version of a skullcrusher instead of the "stable" machine version. But you won't have a problem with someone doing unstable ez-bar skullcrusher instead of super stable machine tricep pushdown. The only thing you care about is if something you do in the gym will immediately make your muscles bigger. If not, you just turn your brain off.
A specification is a set of behaviors. A program is a list of instructions. You wrote out a mostly okay specification of what qualities a good program should have. But it is not a program. None of what you said is a list of instructions. What happens is people post asking for help, and they just start listing these behaviors with no actual program or plan. And they only care about what they look like immediately like that day. They just mention the buzzwords like it means something. There's no conception of how what they lift this Tuesday is going to relate to what they will be able to lift seven or eight Tuesdays from now. They are not thinking about what they want to lift two or three months from now and what they need to do lift today, next week, and the week after next to get to it. People posting like you don't help.
>>77404502>>77404530SKYNET HAS ARRIVED
>>77403599Methodology is kind of bullshit in general it all works if you have the genes for it and none of it will if you don't.Volume and intensity matter but probably not as much as people think same deal with frequency. If you were physically able to red line on all of them all year without wrecking yourself it would probably be a differnce of less than 6 lbs of muscle.Use the effective reps model it makes volume and intensity go in the same box so you can just change up how many sets or reps or styles of sets on the fly.
>>77403599I'm not entirely sure what op believes hereHe's posting real and dyel advice all mixed in to one but greentexted
>>77403599>he thinks 4-5 sets is "high" volume>he thinks 8 reps is "high" repsimagine not endurance maxxing in the big 26
>>77403599>5x5 three times per week is utterly retarded for growth.The what is optimal for 3x a week? Not being snarky, genuinely want recs.
>>77403599Post body
>>77404450calm down, youre gonna give yourself a heart attack fatty
It should be a ban offense to make big ass claims about any program, any of them, and calling people liars without posting body. Post body. We don't believe you
>>77404559Thank you. Because I'm new, I didn't want to give away that I barely understood what he actually meant versus what he is denouncing. In any case, for being so dogmatic, he's not right on everything. Even though, indeed, reddit and this board's advice is generally shit. It's the blind leading the blind. Keyboard warriors.
>>774046333x5 is just as good. Do full body for the first few weeks/months, you will be fine. Consistency beats any program. Eventually (around the time your squat hits your body weight), squatting 3 times a week is going to be too rough. Then you might want to reduce it to two times, and do deadlifts (1x5) once
>>77403599>you dont need to squat. You dont need to deadlift. You dont even need to flat benchif that is true, then this must also be true>you dont need to leg press. You dont need to hamstring curl. You dont even need to chest press machine
i have the feeling 2026 /fit/fags have no idea what full body programming looks likecause full body really is the only thing you should ever do unless you pin
>>77405150Look newfag, trying to shit on reddit to fit in is cringe Just be you>inb4 some election tourist tells me “go back
wow who knew lifts that only blow out your spinal discs aren't actually good
>>77405222Meh. 4-day upper-lower is nice, because you can keep the workouts short
>>77403599>isolation movements for beginners are vitalTrue>Bulking doesnt net a single gram of more muscle gain and is unnecessary. False>5x5 three times per week is utterly retarded for growth. True for a specific movement, false for most 5x5 programs>training to failure has literally no benefit, 1 to 2 reps in reserve nets the exact same adaption without additional fatigueFalse>high volume workouts are a complete waste of time, you get all the adaptation you need off of 2, max 3 sets and progressively overloading. Doing 4-5 sets of multiple exercises for the same muscle is 100% retarded.True> high reps are a meme. No objective benefit whatsoever going over 8 reps.Some people enjoy high reps, some people enjoy lower reps. Also very high rep sets build endurance which is desirable> you dont need to squat. You dont need to deadlift. You dont even need to flat bench. Leg press is more stable and superior for growth in almost every way if you're a beginner. Hip thrusts and hamstring curls are more effective for growing the same muscles. A stable chest press machine is even more effective because you can go closer to failure without being constrained by technique. False
>isolation movements for beginners are vital5x5/bill starrs/madcow/pendlay/stronglifts does not include many isolation movements>Bulking doesnt net a single gram of more muscle gain and is unnecessary.Never had to bulk do to 5x5/bill starrs/madcow/pendlay/stronglifts >5x5 three times per week is utterly retarded for growth.15 whole sets a week is too many? 5x5/bill starrs/madcow/pendlay/stronglifts start beginners with 15 and then will drop to as little as 7 sets a week if 15 is too much for the big man>training to failure has literally no benefit, 1 to 2 reps in reserve nets the exact same adaption without additional fatigue5x5/bill starrs/madcow/pendlay/stronglifts you don't go to failure except before you deload>high volume workouts are a complete waste of time, you get all the adaptation you need off of 2, max 3 sets and progressively overloading. Doing 4-5 sets of multiple exercises for the same muscle is 100% retarded.5x5/bill starrs/madcow/pendlay/stronglifts has you doing as much as 15 whole sets, and as little as 7 whole sets a week> high reps are a meme. No objective benefit whatsoever going over 8 reps.5x5/bill starrs/madcow/pendlay/stronglifts does not have you going over 8 reps> you dont need to squat. You dont need to deadlift. You dont even need to flat bench. Leg press is more stable and superior for growth in almost every way if you're a beginner. Hip thrusts and hamstring curls are more effective for growing the same muscles. A stable chest press machine is even more effective because you can go closer to failure without being constrained by technique.You can run 5x5/bill starrs/madcow/pendlay/stronglifts on any barbell, dumbbell or machine exercise you can load with plates. Heres the advanced versions https://web.archive.org/web/20061113065234/http://www.geocities.com:80/elitemadcow1/5x5_Program/Periodized_5x5.htm You are not supposed to be doing the beginner training program for more than a few months.
The "progressive overload" is built into the fucking program when they tell you to add weight all the time. You don't have to worry about any of this shit if you can follow a very simple program.
IDK why people try to overcomplicate everything. People have such varied body sizes for starters. So your advice for a 125lb twig isn't the same as you'd give to a 200+lb person. If you're lifting hard, and staying consistent you're going to be fine.
>>77405508>4-day upper-lowerif by that you mean ULxULx moving to FxFxFx would be better but you do you>you can keep the workouts shortyeah and you hit the gym 4x a week instead of 3x so pointless
>>77403599>isolation movements for beginners are vitalGood, yes. Vital, no.>Bulking doesnt net a single gram of more muscle gain and is unnecessary.Dirty bulking, yes. Conservative bulk, no.>5x5 three times per week is utterly retarded for growth. Those are beginner programs>training to failure has literally no benefit, 1 to 2 reps in reserve nets the exact same adaption without additional fatigueTrue in theory, but people tend to be dogshit at judging RIR, so going to failure is a safer bet>high volume workouts are a complete waste of time, you get all the adaptation you need off of 2, max 3 sets and progressively overloading. Doing 4-5 sets of multiple exercises for the same muscle is 100% retardedTrue if lifting every set to failure> high reps are a meme. No objective benefit whatsoever going over 8 reps.Adjust rep range to taste. I like to stay under 10 for any exercise.> you dont need to squat. You dont need to deadlift. You dont even need to flat bench. Leg press is more stable and superior for growth in almost every way if you're a beginner. Hip thrusts and hamstring curls are more effective for growing the same muscles. No exercise is truely needed, just find one that you enjoy for each basic movement patern>A stable chest press machine is even more effective because you can go closer to failure without being constrained by technique.Can be true if the chest press machine is adjustable enough to give you full rom and good wieght path. The one at my gym is abysmal trash. Good machine > Dumbbells > Barbell > POWER GAP > shitty machine
>>77405866>Dumbbells > Barbelldyel spottedwhen you move to big boy weights you need spotters for db press
>>77405849Twenty years ago, I would have agreed. But I'm old and don't recover as well as I used to. So two times per week per muscle group is enough for me. But two sessions is not enough overall, hence ULxULxx.>yeah and you hit the gym 4x a week instead of 3x so pointlessI have a homegym in my cellar, so I don't lose time going to the gym and just hit my routine before my morning shower.
>>77403599Wow that's fascinating, post body?
not really related to OP, but general semi-related question.Why am I supposed to listen to lyle mcdonald or solomon nelson when both of them are scrawny dyel? At least solomon is relatively strong and aesthetic for a natty, but he is carried by his autism fueled consistency and diet.
>>77406257that does make perfect sense
>>77403599You don't know how to intuitively rest or program a deload. Your diet also effects this, and knowing when to stop lifting extra especially when not bulking. Look in the mirror and make sure to focus on your weak points and to always put bench/ohp first because they take the longest no matter how good you are and rushing it leads to injury.
>>77403599>>isolation movements for beginners are vitalDo nothing but compounds then, enjoy having 14" arms forever >>Bulking doesnt net a single gram of more muscle gain and is unnecessary.The problem is balance. Obviously gaining 40lbs in winter is absolutely retarded and most of that is fat, but you can bulk sensibly. Not everyone who's bulking is eating McDonald's every day bro. If you wanna stay 160lbs forever you'll get nowhere>>5x5 three times per week is utterly retarded for growth.5x5 is for beginners, and it absolutely will get you stronger. You need strength to grow, what kind of milkers you think you're gonna build with a sub 1.5pl8 bench?>>training to failure has literally no benefit, 1 to 2 reps in reserve nets the exact same adaption without additional fatigueRight on that one. Most people don't know what failure is though, they stop as soon as the reps start to get hard. So most won't even go close to failure>>high volume workouts are a complete waste of time, you get all the adaptation you need off of 2, max 3 sets and progressively overloading. Doing 4-5 sets of multiple exercises for the same muscle is 100% retarded.100% true brah. The idiots doing six gorillion curl variants always have the smallest arms>> high reps are a meme. No objective benefit whatsoever going over 8 reps.Try 20 rep sets of squats, watch your legs blow up >> you dont need to squat. You dont need to deadlift. You dont even need to flat bench. Leg press is more stable and superior for growth in almost every way if you're a beginner. Hip thrusts and hamstring curls are more effective for growing the same muscles. A stable chest press machine is even more effective because you can go closer to failure without being constrained by techniqueDon't care, the big dogs all do compounds while the fags who only use machines look like they've come from the cancer ward, no muscle whatsoever
>>77406340You sound kind of small and dyel?
>>77405904>>77405866Dumbells are shit for loadingWhy would you waste energy/risk injury heaving up heavy 130 dombells. Just sit down at the smith machine or another press machine, set your pin or load the plates and get to work.
>>77406380No I just hit 140kg on bench press, 1 rep, last week lol. 93kg bodyweight
>>77406340>Try 20 rep sets of squats, watch your legs blow upMassive fatigue cost for nothing. Hypertrophy is the result of mechanical tension. You're better off just increasing the weight and doing a set of 8
>>77406407My knees felt like shit when I was going heavy bro. My best ever set was 170kg for 5 good reps + 1 very sus rep struggling to go back up. I only do 2pl8 now but more reps, legs are good as ever but my knees actually feel ok now
>>77403599Add in the following:>If you train more then four days a week your programming sucks>You don't need waste money on protein powder or any other high protein marketed products. Literally just have a balanced diet. >Cardio is mandatory not optional. What good is it to be strong if you can't run at least a block without getting winded?
>>77406313Lyle is always right is why. I enjoy Solomon but Lyle is the GOAT.
>>77406451>>Cardio is mandatory not optional. What good is it to be strong if you can't run at least a block without getting winded?This isn't a real thing unless you're a 400 lb superheavweight, which is a specialist athlete and of no relevance to anything else
this thread is a goldmine of bad advice
>>77406660The guys who make these threads never post body, for some reason
>>77405904>>77406399I guess that's true but I'm fine for now. I mainly train at home with Ironmaster adjustable dumbbells, the maximum I use is 2*70lbs.
>>77405222>>77405849how does full body programming looks like for intermediate/advanced lifters?
>>77403623Yep u can't argue with facts if ur a natty and ur not doing this ur probably extremely frustrated and think that it's impossible to see growth as a natty. The thing is if ur not bulking at 300 cals or so ur not going to be seeing a fucking thing. Nothing except slight noob gains that serve to trick you into thinking your routine is good
>>77403599
>>77408283The same with fewer sets and more intensity
>>77406340THIS IS ALL TRUE
>>77406451Much better advice than all that shit in op
it's hard to make grave mistakes with a semi-sane program and at least reasonable diet when you're new, you can easily achieve like 60% of your potential within 2 yearsthe real grind and possible hiccups begin after that and this is why a lot of advice on /fit/ is dogshit, a lot of you haven't been training for a long time and the ones that have are usually not really sure what actually worked because after a certain point any change is slow and hard to attribute to just one thing
>>77403599I joined in 2011 and unironically did SS + GOMAD. Spent a whole year and ended up with tree trunk quads and no chest or abs. I looked terrible.
>>77405229go back actual election tourist
