# Does the number of reps actually counts?



## AgoSte (Apr 14, 2015)

I'll explain better.... Training in the 6-8 range, vs the 8-12 range, makes much of a difference?

Let's take this routine

Day 1: (high intensity)

5x3-5 bench press
5x3-5 back squats
5x4-6 clean pulls
5x5 barbell rows
5x5-6 romanian deadlifts

Day 2: (moderate volume and intensity)

4x6/8 atg squats
4x6/8 pull ups
4x6/8 military press
4x6/8 incline bench press
4x8/10 dips
4x8/10 barbell curl

Day 3: (high volume)

4x8/12 incline dumbbell press
4x8/12 single arm dumbbell rows
4x8/12 romanian deadlifts
4x8/12 dumbbell curl on a 15° bench
4x8/12 triceps overhead extensions
4x8/12 barbell shrugs

Vs. This:

Day 1: (high intensity)

5x5 bench press
5x5 back squats
5x5 clean pulls
5x5 barbell rows
5x5 romanian deadlifts

Day 2: (moderate volume and intensity)

4x6/8 atg squats
4x6/8 pull ups
4x6/8 military press
4x6/8 incline bench press
4x6/8 dips
4x6/8 barbell curl

Day 3: (high volume)

4x6/8 incline dumbbell press
4x6/8 single arm dumbbell rows
4x6/8 romanian deadlifts
4x6/8 dumbbell curl on a 15° bench
4x6/8 triceps overhead extensions
4x6/8 barbell shrugs

So, is the second actually better, as someone say, because I remain more or less in the same rep range and create adaptation?

Or is the first one better because I include a lot of fibres in my training?

Or are they equal?


----------



## A1243R (Nov 2, 2014)

@Pscarb has been talking abou thtis quite a lot. He mentions basically about muscle failure... Im sure he can expand further


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

It makes no difference at all if your goal is the same (Hypotrophy) as long as you achieve Momentary Muscular Failure (MMF) now many will mistake this for not being able to lift a weight but as we all know there is a huge difference between using a weight that is to heavy for you and reaching MMF within a set......

So no matter if you do 3 sets of 8 or 3 sets of 20 as long as you do MMF then both will achieve their given goals (Muscle Hypotrophy)


----------



## AgoSte (Apr 14, 2015)

Pscarb said:


> It makes no difference at all if your goal is the same (Hypotrophy) as long as you achieve Momentary Muscular Failure (MMF) now many will mistake this for not being able to lift a weight but as we all know there is a huge difference between using a weight that is to heavy for you and reaching MMF within a set......
> 
> So no matter if you do 3 sets of 8 or 3 sets of 20 as long as you do MMF then both will achieve their given goals (Muscle Hypotrophy)


 But more specifically at this point, the 4-8 reps range is to be preferred, since it's also beneficial for strength right?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

if your goal was purely strength then lower down the range to triples and doubles....if you want the combination of strength and hypertrophy then it does not matter as long as you reach failure within that session on that muscle group....

as humans we only recruit all the fibres in a muscle when we reach failure so not reaching failure on a given exercise in a given workout would not be getting everything out of a session.....

now some exercises you could potentially reach MMF in one set, lets say leg press this is because there is no real demand on any smaller muscle groups and the load is all on the quad muscle........

now compare that to Squats, the minor muscle groups in your lower back will fail before your legs will so it is impossible to reach MMF in the quads in one set, so as Bodybuilders (people who are after both Strength and Hypertrophy) would need to do multiple sets to reach failure.....

if you can achieve MMF on a given exercise on say 3-4 sets of 4-8 reps then great but for the majority of people this is not achieved mainly due to using a heavy weight where your minor muscles reach failure before the targeted muscle group.....

does that make sense mate?


----------



## AgoSte (Apr 14, 2015)

Pscarb said:


> if your goal was purely strength then lower down the range to triples and doubles....if you want the combination of strength and hypertrophy then it does not matter as long as you reach failure within that session on that muscle group....
> 
> as humans we only recruit all the fibres in a muscle when we reach failure so not reaching failure on a given exercise in a given workout would not be getting everything out of a session.....
> 
> ...


 Definitely. I'll take advantage of your knowledge and ask you a pair of things about this routine.

Day 1:

5x4-6 bench press
5x4-6 atg squats
5x4-6 clean pulls
5x4-6 barbell rows
5x4-6 romanian deadlifts

Day 2:

4x4-6 front squats
4x4-6 pull ups
4x4-6 military press
4x4-6 incline bench press
4x6-8 dips
4x6-8 barbell curl

Day 3:

4x4-6 incline dumbbell press
4x4-6 single arm dumbbell rows
4x6-8 romanian deadlifts
4x6-8 dumbbell curl on a 15° bench
4x6-8 triceps overhead extensions
4x6-8 barbell shrugs

As you can see I decided to stay on the lower rep range apart for arms and hams and traps. I think this makes sense, since their strength is already tested on other compound lifts.

Anyway, what I'd like to ask you is this:

As you see I introduced the clean pulls. I consider this as an exercise for lower back, quads and shoulders.

Lower back doesn't concern me, but I consider to do 14 sets for legs and 9 sets for shoulders purely because I consider this a quads and shoulders exercise. Do you think this makes sense or should I actually add another exercise? especially for shoulders, that otherwise would be hitten just with military p.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

it makes sense, but why would you think you need to add another exercise? you should be able to reach failure in those 9 sets for shoulders if not increase the weight or the rep ranges of the sets....


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

There are conflicting opinions on this, because some people respond better to heavier weights & lower reps, whilst others respond better to more moderate weights & higher reps. Heavier weights tend to focus on the fast-twich fibres (meaning that fast twitch dominant trainers will tend to benefit more from heavier weights), but there is so much spillover that the majority of trainers will probably see no significant difference in results between the two.

Personally I like to mix both styles, alternating heavy 'power' lifts with more volume orientated work.

As PSCarb said though - how hard you train is a much more important factor, because progressive overload is the single biggest driver of muscle growth.


----------



## AgoSte (Apr 14, 2015)

Pscarb said:


> it makes sense, but why would you think you need to add another exercise? you should be able to reach failure in those 9 sets for shoulders if not increase the weight or the rep ranges of the sets....


 Great. I didn't think I need to, I was just making sure.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Reaching failure is probably overrated I think, stopping short and leaving some in the tank can be beneficial for recovery thereby allowing for more frequent training of any given bodypart thus allowing more overall volume to be used resulting in more gains, or at least that is the theory and in IMO it is valid.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

12 gauge said:


> Reaching failure is probably overrated I think, stopping short and leaving some in the tank can be beneficial for recovery thereby allowing for more frequent training of any given bodypart thus allowing more overall volume to be used resulting in more gains, or at least that is the theory and in IMO it is valid.


 reaching failure does not effect recovery if your nutrition is sorted....you CANNOT recruit all the muscle fibres in a given body part unless you reach momentary muscular failure that is not an opinion that is a fact so if you are stopping short of failure then you will NOT get more gains.......

frequency of training does not rely on if you do or do not go to failure on a individual muscle group, in fact muscle adaption is far better the more you train a muscle this can be seen in the large muscular backs of swimmers or the over grown quad muscle in cyclist, they hit those muscles virtually everyday and they grow out of proportion and they hit each session to the max.......

opinions are just that an opinion, but the facts are that frequency in training has shown that this creates more muscle growth (assuming your nutrition and rest is appropriate) this is via muscle adaptation, MPS, mTor and that the body specifically the muscle trained is more sensitive to these process for put 24hrs post training (in a declining fashion)


----------



## irosscoj (Jan 6, 2016)

AgoSte said:


> 12 gauge said:
> 
> 
> > Reaching failure is probably overrated I think, stopping short and leaving some in the tank can be beneficial for recovery thereby allowing for more frequent training of any given bodypart thus allowing more overall volume to be used resulting in more gains, or at least that is the theory and in IMO it is valid.
> ...


 as Paul said opinions are completely subjective but mine would be that almost all of us more than likely do not actually train to out and out failure (even though we might think we do) - i find doing so incredibly difficult unless i really focus on it - so i structure my training so that i only actually have 2 work sets per exercise so i have almost no choice but to absolutely attack that set and give it everything.

I could not possibly do 10+ sets for say chest and give every single set 100% to the point where i am actually trying to lift the weight but its going backwards - because IMO if you can bang out multiple working sets then you're really not trying hard enough on the sets you're doing. If you're really going to MMF i would be surprised if you could string together more than 4-5 hard working sets. The lower volume, higher frequency scenario will mean that for example you may train your legs once a week for 20 sets - but are you honestly giving those last 10 your all?? or even the first 10?

where as i will hit mine twice for 2 all out battles of 10 sets...where i will absolutely trash the muscle...rep ranges aside, whats more effective?


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> reaching failure does not effect recovery if your nutrition is sorted....*you CANNOT recruit all the muscle fibres in a given body part unless you reach momentary muscular failure that is not an opinion that is a fact *so if you are stopping short of failure then you will NOT get more gains.......


*

*

*

*

*
http://www.weightrainer.net/training/failure.html
*

*

*

*
Summary
*



"Training to failure results in more muscle fiber microtrauma. This may result in a greater growth stimulus than stopping sets shy of failure. However, excessive microtrauma and degradation may partially offset the growth stimulus and blunt the anabolic response, not producing a net anabolic effect any greater than stopping sets short of failure.


Several set protocols produce greater anabolic hormone release than single set protocols, but repeated failure efforts appear to increase levels of catabolic hormones such as cortisol. Repeated sets shy of failure, to a point, appear to possibly lower resting cortisol levels.


Training to failure imposes greater stress on the peripheral nervous system and may lead to an extended period of inhibition and recovery as compared to stopping sets short of failure. This may have the side effect of further stressing the central nervous system.


Training to failure, especially with heavy loads (roughly 85% of one-rep max and above), imposes greater stress on the central nervous system, connective tissues and joint capsules. This may lead to an extended period of central nervous system mediated inhibition.


Clearly, training to failure imposes a longer recovery period than an otherwise identical routine but with sets stopped short of failure. Therefore, if a person choses to train to failure then training must be done less frequently than if the person did not train to failure. The question to be answered is whether it is more productive, from a muscle growth perspective, to train to failure infrequently, or to train short of failure but more often. Herein lies the difference between the two approaches.

In my experience, how a trainee reacts to specific training protocols is strongly influenced by body type:



*Ectomorphs and small-boned endomorphs* do not respond well to high intensity, infrequent training routines that involve regular training to failure. For them, the failure effort imposes an extended period of neuromuscular system inhibition and recovery. In addition, the muscle growth stimulus that they receive from such training is either insufficient to produce significant growth during the extended recovery period or it is offset by other factors such as excessive muscle damage and consequent degradation, and higher resting cortisol levels. (Prolonged excessive training to failure often causes adrenal insufficiency in these types of trainees.) Additionally, the less robust joint structures of small-boned individuals do not tolerate heavy loading as well as larger boned individuals. Small-boned trainees may gain strength, initially, with such training routines, but do not typically gain much muscle size. For these individuals, training to failure must be used sparingly, on higher rep sets only, or on sets of less stressful exercises (i.e. isolation exercises).


*Mesomorphs and large-boned endomorphs*, on the other hand, often react well to heavy training to failure. For them, training to failure produces a sufficient growth stimulus to "carry" them through the recovery periods of both the nervous system and the connective tissues/joint capsules, and to overcome any increases in catabolic hormone levels. And for mesomorphs who possess above average nervous system recovery abilities and particularly robust joint structures, these recovery periods may not be signifcantly extended. For these people, training to failure regularly may be the optimal choice. It should be noted however, that such individuals are typically those considered to be very gifted for bodybuilding.


Clearly, the effects of training to failure and personal recovery patterns have to be considered and monitored when a training approach is adopted."


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

This may be of interest:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/reps-per-set-for-optimal-growth.html/


----------



## irosscoj (Jan 6, 2016)

@12 gauge - good point pal - whats good for the goose, and all that

@AgoSte all in all mate i think its pretty clear opinions differ - try it out for yourself, do cycles of each - monitor your progress see what works best for you. One of the best things i have done is logged my sessions and personally for me progressive overload to as close to MMF as i can go has seen me have my best results


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

12 gauge said:


> *
> 
> *
> 
> ...


 i am confused to why you are making some of what i wrote in bold and then cut and paste something written that actually does not prove what i have said is incorrect in fact the person does not say it is or is not fact......

i posted this up earlier written by Dr Scott Stevenson concerning training frequency, Scott also wrote the Fortitude Training system which takes a muscle group to failure

http://www.elitefts.com/education/training/bodybuilding/integrative-bodybuilding-are-you-training-enough/

just to add i am not saying you take every set to momentary muscular failure i am talking about achieving momentary muscular failure for a body part in the training session not as an individual set....


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> i am confused to why you are making some of what i wrote in bold and then cut and paste something written that actually does not prove what i have said is incorrect in fact the person does not say it is or is not fact......


 I was highlighting the fact that recruitment of muscle fibres is one part of the equation, overall volume above a certain percentage of ones 1RM being another, the article I posted points out why training to failure may in the long run be detrimental.

There is also a study which I'm not having much joy locating which actually found that maximum muscle activation occurs around 3 reps shy of failure, in which case going to MMF would be entirely unnecessary and all that would be achieved by doing so would be to adversely affect the other factors involved in muscular hypertrophy and eat into recovery.

After skimming through the article you posted it appears the authour is emphasising an increase in frequency rather than less frequent higher intensity training, which supports the idea that training with enough overall volume at a sufficient intensity is superior to training at max intensity with less overall cumulative volume.

Layne Norton talks about overall volume being a much more important factor than MMF. thats not to say MMF cant be utilised in a good routine only that its not as important a factor as we may have been led to believe.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

12 gauge said:


> I was highlighting the fact that recruitment of muscle fibres is one part of the equation, overall volume above a certain percentage of ones 1RM being another, the article I posted points out why training to failure may in the long run be detrimental.
> 
> There is also a study which I'm not having much joy locating which actually found that maximum muscle activation occurs around 3 reps shy of failure, in which case going to MMF would be entirely unnecessary and all that would be achieved by doing so would be to adversely affect the other factors involved in muscular hypertrophy and eat into recovery.
> 
> ...


 yes i understand what the article you quoted was saying and that it "MAY" be detrimental but that does not mean it will be, there are several factors that will effect this the quality of your nutritional approach, how much sleep/rest you get, CNS recovery etc......

sorry but Layne norton is an idiot with his own agenda, i cannot listen to a guy that condemns intra workout shakes at one stage then brings his own out to the market......

listen to the podcast 34 and 38 on the "We do science" show those are done with Dr Lee Hamilton and Dr Keith Braa respectively and they explain how 100% muscle fibre recruitment in humans is only achieved when MMF is achieved (which is different to vermin studies, which has been the reference source for many studies until recently) like i said in my last post and something i feel i need to explain as i was challenged about this the other day on FB, i do not mean you should reach MMF in every set just that you should reach MMF for that muscle group in a given workout, so that could be 1 set (highly unlikely) or multiple sets (more Likely) it is extremely hard if not impossible to reach MMF in the quads on each set as minor smaller muscle will fail before the quads do, but over a leg session with multiple sets this can be and should be achieved to get the most out of a session.....


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Fair enough Paul, you've obviously done your research and I'm sure experience has taught you what works best for you.



Pscarb said:


> yes i understand what the article you quoted was saying and that it "MAY" be detrimental but that does not mean it will be, there are several factors that will effect this the quality of your nutritional approach, how much sleep/rest you get, CNS recovery etc......


 I'm sure whether one is using AAS or not is a huge factor in recovery, the natties obviously have to be a lot more conservative in their approach.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

12 gauge said:


> Fair enough Paul, you've obviously done your research and I'm sure experience has taught you what works best for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Obviously being natural does change things up a little with regard to recovery no doubt about that.......

Plus periodisation has to come into play with any training system that is going to be hard on the body, take Fortitude training by far the most productive style of training I have done, it calls for MMF in the given load sets on a bodypart and you train a bodypart one way or another (muscle rounds, load, pump sets) 3-4 times a week but every blast of 4-6 weeks has a week of down time no matter if natural or not so it has to come into play.....

My point here is not that you have to reach MMF to grow as many including myself over the years have shown this not to be true but if you want optimal growth it is the most efficient way but only given that you have other aspects in check (nutrition, rest)


----------



## AngryBuddha (Nov 25, 2015)

Hypertrophy, should be getting multiple sets of atleast 10 reps, sure you can get a big fkn back, and legs etc with low reps only, but the detail muscles will be lagging behind, and certain muscles - bis/calves and others dont like low reps, mix it up, start high, finish low, steady progression, thats key


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Pscarb said:


> It makes no difference at all if your goal is the same (Hypotrophy) as long as you achieve *Momentary Muscular Failure* (MMF) now many will mistake this for not being able to lift a weight but as we all know there is a huge difference between using a weight that is to heavy for you and reaching MMF within a set......
> 
> So no matter if you do 3 sets of 8 or 3 sets of 20 as long as you do MMF then both will achieve their given goals (Muscle Hypotrophy)


 How one will get to know whether he or she has achieve MMF or not?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Jatin Bhatia said:


> Pscarb said:
> 
> 
> > It makes no difference at all if your goal is the same (Hypotrophy) as long as you achieve *Momentary Muscular Failure* (MMF) now many will mistake this for not being able to lift a weight but as we all know there is a huge difference between using a weight that is to heavy for you and reaching MMF within a set......
> ...


 How one will get to know whether he or she has achieve MMF or not?because you will not be able to complete a rep

But to be fair if you do not know you have never achieved it, very different from using a weight you cannot lift though


----------



## sneeky_dave (Apr 2, 2013)

Train like fuuk each session. Simple


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

I hate the 'what is better' discussion with reps, volume and frequency. At the end of the day. Progression within any frame work will stimulate growth.

If you did find the perfect balance, the law of diminishing returns means it will eventually lose effectiveness and some other varient will be better. Nothing is best forever.

IMO Failure is a tool. In high frequency natty train it is a hindrance. In assisted volume it is extremely effective. The space between is highly subjective and will vary from individual and vary within that individual during their lifting life.

I do like the concept that you can only hit proper failure once in a work out. As in all subsequent sets can never hit maximal intensity due to the CNS fatigue by hitting failure. That's why I prefer to avoid failure. but then again, i prefer moderate frequency and all out mass isn't my goal


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

you could discuss what works and what doesn't til your blue in the face...I bet every Bodybuilder (whether professional, amateur or doing it for the craic) reached their 'opinion' more through trail and error, rather than anything else.....So go, try a new routine, if you don't get the results and your diet etc is on point, then try another routine, and repeat until your happy with what works best for you


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Pscarb said:


> How one will get to know whether he or she has achieve MMF or not?because you *will not be able to complete a rep*
> 
> But to be fair if you do not know you have never achieved it, very different from using a weight you cannot lift though


 In short training to failure?. Can we say that?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Jatin Bhatia said:


> Pscarb said:
> 
> 
> > How one will get to know whether he or she has achieve MMF or not?because you *will not be able to complete a rep*
> ...


You seem to think that Momentary Muscular Failure is different to training to Failure??

Just need to point out that I am not saying you will not grow/progress if you do not achieve MMF far from it as we all do/have what I am saying if you want to be optimal in your progress then this will achieve this BUT everything needs to be on point if you are looking to do this with increased frequency


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

AngryBuddha said:


> Hypertrophy, should be getting multiple sets of atleast 10 reps, sure you can get a big fkn back, and legs etc with low reps only, but the detail muscles will be lagging behind, and certain muscles - bis/calves and others dont like low reps, mix it up, start high, finish low, steady progression, thats key


 this is so wrong.......if you create a load on the muscle and train it to eventual failure the amount of sets and reps do not matter for any muscle group.......your body does not think "Ah he has done 9 reps instead of 10 so we wont switch on hypotrophy" mTor and MPS activation determine growth of any muscle group


----------



## sneeky_dave (Apr 2, 2013)

Good to see valid discussion and contribution without it turning into a shiit slinging match.

Very interesting read.


----------



## AngryBuddha (Nov 25, 2015)

Pscarb said:


> this is so wrong.......if you create a load on the muscle and train it to eventual failure the amount of sets and reps do not matter for any muscle group.......your body does not think "Ah he has done 9 reps instead of 10 so we wont switch on hypotrophy" mTor and MPS activation determine growth of any muscle group


 I was just regurgitating info, 'you need to hit atleast 10 reps to get the deep fibres' - Gregg Valentino. Dont shoot the messenger


----------



## Nugentfitness (Dec 30, 2015)

I'd say it's more time under tension(TUT) that matters. Someone could do a set of 10 reps in 30 seconds or a set of 5 reps in 30 seconds and as long as both went to failure then you will get the same results.


----------



## irosscoj (Jan 6, 2016)

AngryBuddha said:


> I was just regurgitating info, 'you need to hit atleast 10 reps to get the deep fibres' - Gregg Valentino. Dont shoot the messenger


 defintely will not be taking any notice of Gregg Valentinos training advice mate

i think Paul summed it up well - MMF is by far the most effective but thats not to say other methods dont work.

personally just go read or listen to some of Dorian's writings or interviews - if anyone knows what it takes to add solid mass then its that guy


----------



## AngryBuddha (Nov 25, 2015)

irosscoj said:


> defintely will not be taking any notice of Gregg Valentinos training advice mate
> 
> i think Paul summed it up well - MMF is by far the most effective but thats not to say other methods dont work.
> 
> personally just go read or listen to some of Dorian's writings or interviews - if anyone knows what it takes to add solid mass then its that guy


 Tried dorians yrs ago, didnt work well for me, 1 set per exercise, was out the gym before my training partners had even came through from changing rm


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

AngryBuddha said:


> I was just regurgitating info, 'you need to hit atleast 10 reps to get the deep fibres' - Gregg Valentino. Dont shoot the messenger


 well you did not say that, you made it appear as this was your understanding and you said it as fact.....hence my reply

plus Gregg Valentino is your source for muscle growth? the man who uses more synth than any other person in history  you should look into listening to some "We do science" podcasts were they speak to actual educated people on the subject


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

sneeky_dave said:


> Good to see valid discussion and contribution without it turning into a shiit slinging match.
> 
> Very interesting read.


 yea refreshing isn't it


----------



## irosscoj (Jan 6, 2016)

AngryBuddha said:


> Tried dorians yrs ago, didnt work well for me, 1 set per exercise, was out the gym before my training partners had even came through from changing rm


 fair enough man - got to find what works for you.

I've followed alot of DY's and Dante's stuff over the last 10 years and its been brilliant. I have recently downloaded Scott Stevensons ebook - its a never ending learning curve of trial and error but there are some tried, test, and scientifically backed methods - one of those being MMF


----------



## AngryBuddha (Nov 25, 2015)

Pscarb said:


> irosscoj said:
> 
> 
> > fair enough man - got to find what works for you.
> ...


 I implent all rep ranges, and tut, and rarely use any programmes out there. As for dorian etc, dont believe for a second you will get even 10% of the results he got, him, ronnie coleman and the rest of them, what they have achieved has little to do with their programmes, they'd be in freakish condition with any 1 of the 1000 programmes out there, they could do push ups only and be in awesome shape


----------



## irosscoj (Jan 6, 2016)

AngryBuddha said:


> I implent all rep ranges, and tut, and rarely use any programmes out there. As for dorian etc, dont believe for a second you will get even 10% of the results he got, him, ronnie coleman and the rest of them, what they have achieved has little to do with their programmes, they'd be in freakish condition with any 1 of the 1000 programmes out there, they could do push ups only and be in awesome shape


 jeez i bet Dorian or those guys would hate knowing that all they needed to do was bang out a few push ups mate - would have saved them alot of wasted hard ass sessions.

i am under no illusions that i wouldnt reach their level as i am not as genetically gifted, but fundamentally what DY, Dante Trudel, etc did and preach has worked considerably well for me so i'll stick with it

in all seriousness though - take a look at some of Dorians old workouts mate - seriously intense


----------



## AngryBuddha (Nov 25, 2015)

irosscoj said:


> jeez i bet Dorian or those guys would hate knowing that all they needed to do was bang out a few push ups mate - would have saved them alot of wasted hard ass sessions.
> 
> i am under no illusions that i wouldnt reach their level as i am not as genetically gifted, but fundamentally what DY, Dante Trudel, etc did and preach has worked considerably well for me so i'll stick with it
> 
> in all seriousness though - take a look at some of Dorians old workouts mate - seriously intense


 Your missing the point buddy, i didnt say they would win contests doing only push ups, but theyd be in far better shape than most of the people on here if thats all they done, doesnt matter what programme those guys do, they just grow


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Nugentfitness said:


> I'd say it's more time under tension(TUT) that matters. Someone could do a set of 10 reps in 30 seconds or a set of 5 reps in 30 seconds and as long as both went to failure then you will get the same results.


I'd say that is unlikely to be true, given that the weight would need to be lower for the slower reps.


----------



## Mogadishu (Aug 29, 2014)

Can someone explain all this to me like Im a 6 year old?

Im doing back later today.

Lat pulldown

Seated cable row

For mass. How would my workout look like?


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

Mogadishu said:


> Can someone explain all this to me like Im a 6 year old?
> 
> Im doing back later today.
> 
> ...


 5 sets of each with 8-10 reps.. point is i think there is no one way of doing it. you might do 8-10 reps for 8 weeks then swap to 6 reps with heavier weight for 8 weeks. then maybe do one exercise 8 reps and the other 6. etc etc. possibly substitute an exercise with another one every so often. possibly add in a drop set or two every so often. at least this is what i do.. i think the key is trying to get your body to adapt to the stress.. it adapts by building muscle tissue.. then when your body gets used to a routine and adaptation stops mix it up by hitting the muscle in a slightly different way, this causes the body to try and adapt again to the new stress. from what ive read on this tread the key is mmf. your body failing to complete that last rep due to the muscle being to fatigued to carry out another repetition at your chosen weight.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

muscle adaptation does not suddenly stop in fact it does not stop at all, well that is not true it adapts by getting stronger/bigger so you can use the same routine with the same reps/sets/exercises for 10yrs and still grow very well, assuming that you continue to train the muscle with maximum intensity and your nutrition is nailed......

@Mogadishu if you want hypotrophy and strength then you train to failure for that session, i don't know anyone who ends a session without giving it there all and giving it your all essentially is muscular failure, it just goes against all logic to not do that......

plus no one trains for mass, you train for strength but not mass, nutrition (calories) provide the mass just make sure you train hard and let your diet do the rest.......10 sets of 6 reps will not give you more mass than 6 sets of 10 reps if you are not eating enough


----------



## 195645855 (Jun 26, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> I'd say that is unlikely to be true, given that the weight would need to be lower for the slower reps.


 I think what he's trying to get at (not in the clearest of ways) is if you were to take X weight and use a 1-0-1-0 tempo with a chosen exercise and it took say 10 reps to reach failure. Using the same weight but with a 4-0-1-0 tempo and completing fewer reps before failure was reached is no different in terms of stimulation. The total time under tension for each tempo would probably be identical, just fewer reps would have been completed using a slower tempo before failure was achieved. The important factor is achieving failure, not the reps or the tempo/TUT.

........Which actually voids the point.


----------



## Mogadishu (Aug 29, 2014)

Pscarb said:


> @Mogadishu10 sets of 6 reps will not give you more mass than 6 sets of 10 reps if you are not eating enough


 How about tempo and rest?

6 set per muscle or excercise? 6 set total x2/week = 12 set per muscle. So many important variables than just set and reps.


----------



## Prince Adam (Mar 17, 2012)

Interestings


----------



## p.cullen (Jun 6, 2014)

Mogadishu said:


> Can someone explain all this to me like Im a 6 year old?
> 
> Im doing back later today.
> 
> ...


 If you have read all the posts up until this point and dont know how your workout should look like using these exercises then i think there is something wrong lol

warm up, pick a decent weight you can lift and work till failure i think thats the general idea here lol


----------



## Mogadishu (Aug 29, 2014)

p.cullen said:


> If you have read all the posts up until this point and dont know how your workout should look like using these exercises then i think there is something wrong lol
> 
> warm up, pick a decent weight you can lift and work till failure i think thats the general idea here lol


 We both know its more than picking a weight and execute reps. LoL its science lol.


----------



## monkeybiker (Jul 21, 2010)

Alex-the-Greek said:


> I think what he's trying to get at (not in the clearest of ways) is if you were to take X weight and use a 1-0-1-0 tempo with a chosen exercise and it took say 10 reps to reach failure. Using the same weight but with a 4-0-1-0 tempo and completing fewer reps before failure was reached is no different in terms of stimulation. The total time under tension for each tempo would probably be identical, just fewer reps would have been completed using a slower tempo before failure was achieved. The important factor is achieving failure, not the reps or the tempo/TUT.
> 
> ........Which actually voids the point.


 It's not the same. If you do quicker reps you will be pushing with more force. I thought you were meant to lift the weight fast but lower slow as in don't just drop the weight.

I'm not saying either way is better but the forces are different.


----------



## p.cullen (Jun 6, 2014)

Mogadishu said:


> We both know its more than picking a weight and execute reps. LoL its science lol.


 its not really its much more simpler than that. take diet away from the scenario and we are talking purely training here. if you pick a weight say 70% of your max and do reps till failure then i can pretty much guarantee your muscles will grow. people over complicate training to much


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Mogadishu said:


> How about tempo and rest?
> 
> 6 set per muscle or excercise? 6 set total x2/week = 12 set per muscle. So many important variables than just set and reps.


 For starters the numbers I used were for illustration purposes only, to show it did not matter if you do 6 sets on a muscle or 60 as long as you reach muscular failure

secondly to grow there are not many variables

1 - eat a diet that gives you a calorie surplus

2 - train hard

3 - rest/sleep well

advanced techniques like TUT come into play so you can reach failure they are not used as a substitute to training hard.......


----------



## Nugentfitness (Dec 30, 2015)

Alex-the-Greek said:


> I think what he's trying to get at (not in the clearest of ways) is if you were to take X weight and use a 1-0-1-0 tempo with a chosen exercise and it took say 10 reps to reach failure. Using the same weight but with a 4-0-1-0 tempo and completing fewer reps before failure was reached is no different in terms of stimulation. The total time under tension for each tempo would probably be identical, just fewer reps would have been completed using a slower tempo before failure was achieved. The important factor is achieving failure, not the reps or the tempo/TUT.
> 
> ........Which actually voids the point.


 Yep cheers wasn't the best wording but that is what I was referring to.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Mogadishu said:


> We both know its more than picking a weight and execute reps. LoL its science lol.


 U use the lol term as if science is something doesn't influence growth?? Contracting the muscle, muscle adaptation, MTor, MPS are all backed up by science as these are all natural processes that happens when people train it's not new information it's just understanding how a muscle is grown in detail....

but it given your replies in this thread i suggest you just lift a weight from point A to point B and forget about the bits about how muscle grows lol


----------



## Nugentfitness (Dec 30, 2015)

monkeybiker said:


> It's not the same. If you do quicker reps you will be pushing with more force. I thought you were meant to lift the weight fast but lower slow as in don't just drop the weight.
> 
> I'm not saying either way is better but the forces are different.


 It depends what you're referring to as a fast rep? Don't be fooled by thinking that just because it takes someone 3 seconds in the concentric phase that they are not using explosive power. Controlling a weight and focussing on maximum on contraction is key for hypertrophy but no matter what way you train you will always progress if going to failure.


----------



## 195645855 (Jun 26, 2015)

monkeybiker said:


> It's not the same. If you do quicker reps you will be pushing with more force. I thought you were meant to lift the weight fast but lower slow as in don't just drop the weight.
> 
> I'm not saying either way is better but the forces are different.


 Yes it is.

Look at the tempos I specified. It's laid out as negative-bottom-positive-top

The positive or 'force' as you refer to is the same.


----------



## monkeybiker (Jul 21, 2010)

Alex-the-Greek said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> Look at the tempos I specified. It's laid out as negative-bottom-positive-top
> 
> The positive or 'force' as you refer to is the same.


 Yes, I see what your saying now.


----------



## Frandeman (Mar 24, 2014)

No really

Weight it's more important ?


----------



## monkeybiker (Jul 21, 2010)

Nugentfitness said:


> It depends what you're referring to as a fast rep? Don't be fooled by thinking that just because it takes someone 3 seconds in the concentric phase that they are not using explosive power. Controlling a weight and focussing on maximum on contraction is key for hypertrophy but no matter what way you train you will always progress if going to failure.


 I'm not saying which is better but just saying you would need to apply more force to lift up the weight in 1 second vs 3 seconds. You need more force to accelerate the weight.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

explosive force to press/pull/curl etc a rep is more important than TUT, granted TUT is something that can be used to achieve failure but if you are using a weight that loads the muscle then you will achieve failure, it does not matter if your TUT is 1sec or 3sec


----------



## babyarm (Sep 4, 2013)

p.cullen said:


> Mogadishu said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone explain all this to me like Im a 6 year old?
> ...


Lol


----------



## AngryBuddha (Nov 25, 2015)

They say as long as its contolled on they way down, explode up, thats the right tempo


----------

