I don't follow amateur wrestling very closely but youtube has a ton of "vintage" collegiate wrestling finals from the 1990s and 2000s. It was a fun rabbit hole to fall down while I was doing some research on Lesnar's pre-fake wrasslin career.
Stupid Questions Thread
Moderators: mgil, chromoly, Manveer
- bobmen10000
- Registered User
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:34 pm
- Age: 43
- Contact:
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:43 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
Part of it is also the potential for cables to make the movement more difficult and provide tension when the target muscle is stretched. Like in lateral raises the bottom is not loaded very much but it gets really hard at the top when the delts are already shortened a bunch.James wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:22 am I think the thought that machines and cables are better than bars and dumbbells for hypertrophy in certain exercises comes from the idea that constant tension is better than the momentary tension that comes from the physics of a swinging weight.
Is it? No idea. I've heard people saying it but never thought about it deeply because I don't have access to any of that stuff.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:26 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
That makes a lot of sense.
I made a low pulley for my DIY pulldown set up a while ago so I could probably give cable laterals a try. Something to play with one day I guess.
I made a low pulley for my DIY pulldown set up a while ago so I could probably give cable laterals a try. Something to play with one day I guess.
- CheekiBreekiFitness
- Registered User
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:46 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
- Brackish
- Registered User
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:29 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
From what I understand, the opposite is true. The more trained a lifter (muscle) is, the more volume needed to produce hypertrophy, which seems to align with the RP stuff I tend to follow for hypertrophy. From my experience, it's pretty easy to bring the volume (sets or reps) needed to produce the type of feelings in a particular muscle that you're describing down - just add some weight.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
Also, isn't time under tension one of the big drivers of hypertrophy? If you're trying to get bigger, why would you want to reduce time under tension?
Here's the tricep specific information from them, since you mentioned that one specifically.
https://rpstrength.com/triceps-hypertro ... 1675862094
*Disclaimer - I know fuck all about training. I just dance with dumbbells in the gym because it makes me feel good.
- CheekiBreekiFitness
- Registered User
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:46 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
Actually I partly had Renaissance Periodization in mind. So I'm familiar with their recommendation, to progress by adding sets from week to week, which makes sense (more volume with the same level of effort and weight on the bar should give more gains, I agree with that 100%). After some weeks you get some pretty high number of sets.Brackish wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:19 amFrom what I understand, the opposite is true. The more trained a lifter (muscle) is, the more volume needed to produce hypertrophy, which seems to align with the RP stuff I tend to follow for hypertrophy. From my experience, it's pretty easy to bring the volume (sets or reps) needed to produce the type of feelings in a particular muscle that you're describing down - just add some weight.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
Also, isn't time under tension one of the big drivers of hypertrophy? If you're trying to get bigger, why would you want to reduce time under tension?
Here's the tricep specific information from them, since you mentioned that one specifically.
https://rpstrength.com/triceps-hypertro ... 1675862094
*Disclaimer - I know fuck all about training. I just dance with dumbbells in the gym because it makes me feel good.
Now where it gets interesting is when you watch the videos of how these folks actually train. There are videos in which you seen them do 3 sets of leg curls, 3 sets of quads on a hack squat, some lunges and then basically collapse on the floor.
Also, about time under tension: if you allow me to do some myoreps and some super sets I can have a pretty insane time under tension even in a few sets.
PS: dancing is great, I wish I knew how to, but I have the spatial awareness of a brick
- Allentown
- Likes Beer
- Posts: 10018
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:41 am
- Location: Grindville, West MI. Pop: 2 Gainzgoblins
- Age: 40
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
I hooked up my low pulley for lateral raises exactly once. I liked it better, but not enough to justify the setup time. I just live with my lack of loading the muscle at the bottom of the movement.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2018 8:31 am
- Age: 49
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
I have students who feel a burn in their legs just walking up the two flights of stairs to my classroom, so I would think the opposite is true. Novices can be destroyed by literally anything, often in one hard set.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
- Skander
- Registered User
- Posts: 1419
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:02 pm
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
I cluster things, so I'll do a bunch of stuff that needs the low pulley (curls, pull throughs, lateral raises, etc) then switch back to high (triceps, face pulls, etc) and go back and forth through my accessories that way.Allentown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:23 amI hooked up my low pulley for lateral raises exactly once. I liked it better, but not enough to justify the setup time. I just live with my lack of loading the muscle at the bottom of the movement.
- Allentown
- Likes Beer
- Posts: 10018
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:41 am
- Location: Grindville, West MI. Pop: 2 Gainzgoblins
- Age: 40
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
Current program has lateral raises at the end of Bench/pause squat/dips.Skander wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:19 amI cluster things, so I'll do a bunch of stuff that needs the low pulley (curls, pull throughs, lateral raises, etc) then switch back to high (triceps, face pulls, etc) and go back and forth through my accessories that way.Allentown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:23 amI hooked up my low pulley for lateral raises exactly once. I liked it better, but not enough to justify the setup time. I just live with my lack of loading the muscle at the bottom of the movement.
- Hardartery
- Registered User
- Posts: 3137
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm
- Location: Fat City
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
One set. You can crush anything into immobility in a single set if you want to, but I very much doubt that it is optimum. For most people somewhere between 2 and 4 sets is likely best, provided they are really getting after it. Do you want to elaborate on some details of your theory? Cadence, reps, weight(s), forced reps, pausing with weights "In hand" instead of actually stopping the set, myorepping, dropping or clustering, there are a lot of variables to consider. Then there's also thing like switching between bilateral and unilateral movement, holds as a finisher, etc.. You can drive yourself to collapsing into your own puke with virtually anything if you do it right.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
- Skander
- Registered User
- Posts: 1419
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:02 pm
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
That sucks... Yeah if I don't have a block of cable stuff to do, it's not worth setting it up. Especially since my low cable is literally a chain connected to the bottom of the rack with eye bolts, so it can't really be used if I'm doing stuff on that side of the rack. My big thing used to be doing accessories between main lifts, but can't easily do that with the cable.Allentown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:14 pmCurrent program has lateral raises at the end of Bench/pause squat/dips.Skander wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:19 amI cluster things, so I'll do a bunch of stuff that needs the low pulley (curls, pull throughs, lateral raises, etc) then switch back to high (triceps, face pulls, etc) and go back and forth through my accessories that way.Allentown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:23 amI hooked up my low pulley for lateral raises exactly once. I liked it better, but not enough to justify the setup time. I just live with my lack of loading the muscle at the bottom of the movement.
- Allentown
- Likes Beer
- Posts: 10018
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:41 am
- Location: Grindville, West MI. Pop: 2 Gainzgoblins
- Age: 40
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
I use a 2x6 to attach the low pulley to the front of my cage, so same idea
- CheekiBreekiFitness
- Registered User
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:46 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
A quad pump by going up the stairs ? That's interesting, I didn't know you could do that.lehman906 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:03 amI have students who feel a burn in their legs just walking up the two flights of stairs to my classroom, so I would think the opposite is true. Novices can be destroyed by literally anything, often in one hard set.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
- Brackish
- Registered User
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:29 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
I'm not really into watching the videos highlighting training sessions for their various lifters. They just don't tend to keep my attention. However, the one I did see involved quite a few sets of leg extensions, followed by leg curls, followed by a horizontal hack squat where the lifter was obviously pushing themselves right to mechanical failure. I'm not sure whether or not I could find it again though.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:31 amActually I partly had Renaissance Periodization in mind. So I'm familiar with their recommendation, to progress by adding sets from week to week, which makes sense (more volume with the same level of effort and weight on the bar should give more gains, I agree with that 100%). After some weeks you get some pretty high number of sets.Brackish wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:19 amFrom what I understand, the opposite is true. The more trained a lifter (muscle) is, the more volume needed to produce hypertrophy, which seems to align with the RP stuff I tend to follow for hypertrophy. From my experience, it's pretty easy to bring the volume (sets or reps) needed to produce the type of feelings in a particular muscle that you're describing down - just add some weight.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
Also, isn't time under tension one of the big drivers of hypertrophy? If you're trying to get bigger, why would you want to reduce time under tension?
Here's the tricep specific information from them, since you mentioned that one specifically.
https://rpstrength.com/triceps-hypertro ... 1675862094
*Disclaimer - I know fuck all about training. I just dance with dumbbells in the gym because it makes me feel good.
Now where it gets interesting is when you watch the videos of how these folks actually train. There are videos in which you seen them do 3 sets of leg curls, 3 sets of quads on a hack squat, some lunges and then basically collapse on the floor.
Also, about time under tension: if you allow me to do some myoreps and some super sets I can have a pretty insane time under tension even in a few sets.
PS: dancing is great, I wish I knew how to, but I have the spatial awareness of a brick
Agree with the myoreps. I use them when my training time is limited but I want to get as much out of the session as I can. Supersets also work, but depending on what you're supersetting it with, you're actually increasing volume. I think they talk/speak more about sets per muscle than they do sets per exercise. So, you can do 4 sets of squats and then 4 sets of lunges, but that's still 8 sets for quads (legs). Which, for me anyways, is a shitload of volume.
- CheekiBreekiFitness
- Registered User
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:46 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
Oh for sure I agree with the fact that 1 set is probably not enough. I don't think I ever managed to destroy a muscle in 1 set (I'm not a very good lifter so there's that). I mean in general I don't really believe in "optimal" in the sense that one particular training technique is the absolute best. But from time to time trying to generate the maximal amount of stimulus in a reduced number of sets can be useful, I think (because it forces you to use good mind muscle connection, use a long range of motion, high effort etc). I called it a "theory" in a semi-comical manner, it's more like broscience really. But if I had to give some parameters it would be: long range of motion, typical hypertrophy range (10-30 RM) myoreps allowed, possibly done on machines (I don't think that free weights are great if you're really trying to drive local fatigue to its maximum).Hardartery wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:15 pmOne set. You can crush anything into immobility in a single set if you want to, but I very much doubt that it is optimum. For most people somewhere between 2 and 4 sets is likely best, provided they are really getting after it. Do you want to elaborate on some details of your theory? Cadence, reps, weight(s), forced reps, pausing with weights "In hand" instead of actually stopping the set, myorepping, dropping or clustering, there are a lot of variables to consider. Then there's also thing like switching between bilateral and unilateral movement, holds as a finisher, etc.. You can drive yourself to collapsing into your own puke with virtually anything if you do it right.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
- CheekiBreekiFitness
- Registered User
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:46 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
I was thinking of this for instanceBrackish wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:23 amI'm not really into watching the videos highlighting training sessions for their various lifters. They just don't tend to keep my attention. However, the one I did see involved quite a few sets of leg extensions, followed by leg curls, followed by a horizontal hack squat where the lifter was obviously pushing themselves right to mechanical failure. I'm not sure whether or not I could find it again though.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:31 amActually I partly had Renaissance Periodization in mind. So I'm familiar with their recommendation, to progress by adding sets from week to week, which makes sense (more volume with the same level of effort and weight on the bar should give more gains, I agree with that 100%). After some weeks you get some pretty high number of sets.Brackish wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:19 amFrom what I understand, the opposite is true. The more trained a lifter (muscle) is, the more volume needed to produce hypertrophy, which seems to align with the RP stuff I tend to follow for hypertrophy. From my experience, it's pretty easy to bring the volume (sets or reps) needed to produce the type of feelings in a particular muscle that you're describing down - just add some weight.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
Also, isn't time under tension one of the big drivers of hypertrophy? If you're trying to get bigger, why would you want to reduce time under tension?
Here's the tricep specific information from them, since you mentioned that one specifically.
https://rpstrength.com/triceps-hypertro ... 1675862094
*Disclaimer - I know fuck all about training. I just dance with dumbbells in the gym because it makes me feel good.
Now where it gets interesting is when you watch the videos of how these folks actually train. There are videos in which you seen them do 3 sets of leg curls, 3 sets of quads on a hack squat, some lunges and then basically collapse on the floor.
Also, about time under tension: if you allow me to do some myoreps and some super sets I can have a pretty insane time under tension even in a few sets.
PS: dancing is great, I wish I knew how to, but I have the spatial awareness of a brick
Agree with the myoreps. I use them when my training time is limited but I want to get as much out of the session as I can. Supersets also work, but depending on what you're supersetting it with, you're actually increasing volume. I think they talk/speak more about sets per muscle than they do sets per exercise. So, you can do 4 sets of squats and then 4 sets of lunges, but that's still 8 sets for quads (legs). Which, for me anyways, is a shitload of volume.
Basically a few leg curls -> a few hack squats -> death. And the lifters are pretty strong I believe.
- alek
- Registered User
- Posts: 3176
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
- Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
- Age: 42
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
I enjoy watching those videos. I can't find it right now, but one of my favorites for a leg focus was Lying leg curl -> High bar squat -> Leg press. I did that one quite a bit, and it was pretty brutal.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:26 amI was thinking of this for instanceBrackish wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:23 amI'm not really into watching the videos highlighting training sessions for their various lifters. They just don't tend to keep my attention. However, the one I did see involved quite a few sets of leg extensions, followed by leg curls, followed by a horizontal hack squat where the lifter was obviously pushing themselves right to mechanical failure. I'm not sure whether or not I could find it again though.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:31 amActually I partly had Renaissance Periodization in mind. So I'm familiar with their recommendation, to progress by adding sets from week to week, which makes sense (more volume with the same level of effort and weight on the bar should give more gains, I agree with that 100%). After some weeks you get some pretty high number of sets.Brackish wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:19 amFrom what I understand, the opposite is true. The more trained a lifter (muscle) is, the more volume needed to produce hypertrophy, which seems to align with the RP stuff I tend to follow for hypertrophy. From my experience, it's pretty easy to bring the volume (sets or reps) needed to produce the type of feelings in a particular muscle that you're describing down - just add some weight.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
Also, isn't time under tension one of the big drivers of hypertrophy? If you're trying to get bigger, why would you want to reduce time under tension?
Here's the tricep specific information from them, since you mentioned that one specifically.
https://rpstrength.com/triceps-hypertro ... 1675862094
*Disclaimer - I know fuck all about training. I just dance with dumbbells in the gym because it makes me feel good.
Now where it gets interesting is when you watch the videos of how these folks actually train. There are videos in which you seen them do 3 sets of leg curls, 3 sets of quads on a hack squat, some lunges and then basically collapse on the floor.
Also, about time under tension: if you allow me to do some myoreps and some super sets I can have a pretty insane time under tension even in a few sets.
PS: dancing is great, I wish I knew how to, but I have the spatial awareness of a brick
Agree with the myoreps. I use them when my training time is limited but I want to get as much out of the session as I can. Supersets also work, but depending on what you're supersetting it with, you're actually increasing volume. I think they talk/speak more about sets per muscle than they do sets per exercise. So, you can do 4 sets of squats and then 4 sets of lunges, but that's still 8 sets for quads (legs). Which, for me anyways, is a shitload of volume.
Basically a few leg curls -> a few hack squats -> death. And the lifters are pretty strong I believe.
- Brackish
- Registered User
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:29 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
Like I said, I CBA to watch a 20 minute video of someone else training, but I was able to watch it for a bit. If you define a set of leg curls, basically to failure, followed by 5 more reps after a brief rest, then 4, then 3, etc. followed by sets after that, also basically to failure, which was then followed by sets of tempo leg curls as "a few leg curls", then I guess you and I are just built different.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:26 amI was thinking of this for instanceBrackish wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:23 amI'm not really into watching the videos highlighting training sessions for their various lifters. They just don't tend to keep my attention. However, the one I did see involved quite a few sets of leg extensions, followed by leg curls, followed by a horizontal hack squat where the lifter was obviously pushing themselves right to mechanical failure. I'm not sure whether or not I could find it again though.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:31 amActually I partly had Renaissance Periodization in mind. So I'm familiar with their recommendation, to progress by adding sets from week to week, which makes sense (more volume with the same level of effort and weight on the bar should give more gains, I agree with that 100%). After some weeks you get some pretty high number of sets.Brackish wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:19 amFrom what I understand, the opposite is true. The more trained a lifter (muscle) is, the more volume needed to produce hypertrophy, which seems to align with the RP stuff I tend to follow for hypertrophy. From my experience, it's pretty easy to bring the volume (sets or reps) needed to produce the type of feelings in a particular muscle that you're describing down - just add some weight.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
Also, isn't time under tension one of the big drivers of hypertrophy? If you're trying to get bigger, why would you want to reduce time under tension?
Here's the tricep specific information from them, since you mentioned that one specifically.
https://rpstrength.com/triceps-hypertro ... 1675862094
*Disclaimer - I know fuck all about training. I just dance with dumbbells in the gym because it makes me feel good.
Now where it gets interesting is when you watch the videos of how these folks actually train. There are videos in which you seen them do 3 sets of leg curls, 3 sets of quads on a hack squat, some lunges and then basically collapse on the floor.
Also, about time under tension: if you allow me to do some myoreps and some super sets I can have a pretty insane time under tension even in a few sets.
PS: dancing is great, I wish I knew how to, but I have the spatial awareness of a brick
Agree with the myoreps. I use them when my training time is limited but I want to get as much out of the session as I can. Supersets also work, but depending on what you're supersetting it with, you're actually increasing volume. I think they talk/speak more about sets per muscle than they do sets per exercise. So, you can do 4 sets of squats and then 4 sets of lunges, but that's still 8 sets for quads (legs). Which, for me anyways, is a shitload of volume.
Basically a few leg curls -> a few hack squats -> death. And the lifters are pretty strong I believe.
I'm willing to bet that doing what they did, if the person was honest with themselves and their effort throughout the entire session, would smoke 95% of people that go to the gym on a regular basis.
- CheekiBreekiFitness
- Registered User
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:46 am
Re: Stupid Questions Thread
Yeah I mean they're doing myoreps for legcurls, so that each set is quite stimulative. And yes training like that can smoke you (I know because I regularly train like that). So I feel it illustrates my point: they are getting smoked (in a good way) in a few sets.Brackish wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:53 amLike I said, I CBA to watch a 20 minute video of someone else training, but I was able to watch it for a bit. If you define a set of leg curls, basically to failure, followed by 5 more reps after a brief rest, then 4, then 3, etc. followed by sets after that, also basically to failure, which was then followed by sets of tempo leg curls as "a few leg curls", then I guess you and I are just built different.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:26 amI was thinking of this for instanceBrackish wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:23 amI'm not really into watching the videos highlighting training sessions for their various lifters. They just don't tend to keep my attention. However, the one I did see involved quite a few sets of leg extensions, followed by leg curls, followed by a horizontal hack squat where the lifter was obviously pushing themselves right to mechanical failure. I'm not sure whether or not I could find it again though.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:31 amActually I partly had Renaissance Periodization in mind. So I'm familiar with their recommendation, to progress by adding sets from week to week, which makes sense (more volume with the same level of effort and weight on the bar should give more gains, I agree with that 100%). After some weeks you get some pretty high number of sets.Brackish wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:19 amFrom what I understand, the opposite is true. The more trained a lifter (muscle) is, the more volume needed to produce hypertrophy, which seems to align with the RP stuff I tend to follow for hypertrophy. From my experience, it's pretty easy to bring the volume (sets or reps) needed to produce the type of feelings in a particular muscle that you're describing down - just add some weight.CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:57 am OK so I came up with a theory and I would like the opinion of this fine forum on it:
For hypertrophy, I believe that a very important parameter is the number of sets and/or the amount of time required to completely "destroy" a muscle (huge painful pump, muscle twitching, big loss of strength, limbs shaking, huge burn, you get the idea). By corollary, an important objective of training should be to bring this number down. Also, if this number is much higher for some muscle groups, it means that they are probably weak points and/or you do not train them as well as you could. For instance I can destroy my quads in 3 sets, but not my triceps. Also, most novices cannot destroy any muscle groups in 3 sets (at least according to what I've seen in commercial gyms).
This is kind of opposite to the philosophy of adding sets to progress.
Of course I do not think it is true for strength, since it has a skill component.
Also, isn't time under tension one of the big drivers of hypertrophy? If you're trying to get bigger, why would you want to reduce time under tension?
Here's the tricep specific information from them, since you mentioned that one specifically.
https://rpstrength.com/triceps-hypertro ... 1675862094
*Disclaimer - I know fuck all about training. I just dance with dumbbells in the gym because it makes me feel good.
Now where it gets interesting is when you watch the videos of how these folks actually train. There are videos in which you seen them do 3 sets of leg curls, 3 sets of quads on a hack squat, some lunges and then basically collapse on the floor.
Also, about time under tension: if you allow me to do some myoreps and some super sets I can have a pretty insane time under tension even in a few sets.
PS: dancing is great, I wish I knew how to, but I have the spatial awareness of a brick
Agree with the myoreps. I use them when my training time is limited but I want to get as much out of the session as I can. Supersets also work, but depending on what you're supersetting it with, you're actually increasing volume. I think they talk/speak more about sets per muscle than they do sets per exercise. So, you can do 4 sets of squats and then 4 sets of lunges, but that's still 8 sets for quads (legs). Which, for me anyways, is a shitload of volume.
Basically a few leg curls -> a few hack squats -> death. And the lifters are pretty strong I believe.
I'm willing to bet that doing what they did, if the person was honest with themselves and their effort throughout the entire session, would smoke 95% of people that go to the gym on a regular basis.
That's also why I feel that being able to smoke yourself in a few sets is a skill that must be learnt. I mean look at your average commercial gym, most people will do a million sets because they just don't know how to make the sets count to actually stimulate the muscle in a short amount of time.