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.
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.
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.
*Disclaimer - I know fuck all about training. I just dance with dumbbells in the gym because it makes me feel good.
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.
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
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.
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.
I was thinking of this for instance
Basically a few leg curls -> a few hack squats -> death. And the lifters are pretty strong I believe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you're blurring the distinction between high metabolic stress training (myoreps, drop sets, "getting wrecked", etc.) vanilla hypertrophy training (say RPE 6+ mostly), and the pointless stuff gym casuals do (like 15+ RIR).
In general I wouldn't take it for granted that the first is a better choice than the second, but either of the two will work better than the third.
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.
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.
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.
*Disclaimer - I know fuck all about training. I just dance with dumbbells in the gym because it makes me feel good.
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.
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
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.
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.
I was thinking of this for instance
Basically a few leg curls -> a few hack squats -> death. And the lifters are pretty strong I believe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you're blurring the distinction between high metabolic stress training (myoreps, drop sets, "getting wrecked", etc.) vanilla hypertrophy training (say RPE 6+ mostly), and the pointless stuff gym casuals do (like 15+ RIR).
In general I wouldn't take it for granted that the first is a better choice than the second, but either of the two will work better than the third.
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.
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.
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.
*Disclaimer - I know fuck all about training. I just dance with dumbbells in the gym because it makes me feel good.
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.
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
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.
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.
I was thinking of this for instance
Basically a few leg curls -> a few hack squats -> death. And the lifters are pretty strong I believe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, that's where our thinking/opinion (whatever) diverges. I don't consider that to be a "a few sets".
Bored at work today. Found another leg video. Went through and just looked at the exercises they did and his explanation(s) so I didn't have to watch the whole thing. Link is below.
1. Leg Curls (3 sets, 10-20 reps) - She got 17 reps in the first set. So, he has her do two subsequent sets and use myoreps to make up the difference/meet 17 reps from first set.
2. Pendulum Squat (3 sets, 10-20 reps) - Same deal.
3. Lunge-Squat Super Sets (3 sets, 10-20 reps) - Same deal. [I would count this as two exercises, personally.]
Total(s) - 9 [12] sets for a total of 90-180 [120-210] reps...for lower body training. That's not "a few sets" to me. If that's "a few sets", what's a lot of sets?
Brackish wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 6:17 am
what's a lot of sets?
IIRC, Arnold’s beginner program from his encyclopedia is 5 sets of 10-12 reps, on 3 or so exercises per muscle, working 3-4 muscles per session.
That’s a fucking lot of sets.
Reading stuff on the Golden Era and before on sites like Tight Tan Slacks of Dezo Ban and Jamie Lewis' stuff, it really does look like that was the norm. So many weightlifters, bodybuilders, and early powerlifters would do full body workouts with 5+ sets on everything, but it was like 8-10 exercises. I don't know if it's a survivor bias in that we remember those that could do it, or like they say about the Bulgarian system in that it reveals champions instead of building them, or if there really is something to people just being tougher then, but the workloads were crazy.
@Brackish Their session is 6 sets of quads and 3 sets of hamstrings. Say you did this session twice, that would be 12 sets of quads and 6 sets of hamstrings a week. According to RP, the MRV is 18 sets of quads and 12 sets of hamstrings a week, which is a lot more.
Now don't get me wrong I think tha those concepts of counting sets, MEV, MRV etc are all a bit silly I'm just bringing this up to provide a comparison.
Also as said by @lehman906 and @DCR the golden era guys were famous for doing tons of sets.
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:43 am
@Brackish Their session is 6 sets of quads and 3 sets of hamstrings. Say you did this session twice, that would be 12 sets of quads and 6 sets of hamstrings a week. According to RP, the MRV is 18 sets of quads and 12 sets of hamstrings a week, which is a lot more.
Now don't get me wrong I think tha those concepts of counting sets, MEV, MRV etc are all a bit silly I'm just bringing this up to provide a comparison.
Also as said by @lehman906 and @DCR the golden era guys were famous for doing tons of sets.
I believe Dr Mike to be saying something different here.
Brackish wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 6:17 am
what's a lot of sets?
IIRC, Arnold’s beginner program from his encyclopedia is 5 sets of 10-12 reps, on 3 or so exercises per muscle, working 3-4 muscles per session.
That’s a fucking lot of sets.
Reading stuff on the Golden Era and before on sites like Tight Tan Slacks of Dezo Ban and Jamie Lewis' stuff, it really does look like that was the norm. So many weightlifters, bodybuilders, and early powerlifters would do full body workouts with 5+ sets on everything, but it was like 8-10 exercises. I don't know if it's a survivor bias in that we remember those that could do it, or like they say about the Bulgarian system in that it reveals champions instead of building them, or if there really is something to people just being tougher then, but the workloads were crazy.
I’ve always assumed that some part of it was short rest periods and, correspondingly, light weights. I think there’s a major difference between, say, 5x5 squats with a percentage of 1RM that requires resting eight minutes or whatever between sets, and 5x10 squats done in like fifteen-twenty minutes total, working with a percentage of 1RM to match.
To be clear, by “light” I’m solely referring to percent of max. I’m very sure all of those guys were doing their 5x10 (or worse) with what what would be a fuckload of weight as compared to anything the average lifter could sniff.
Brackish wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 6:17 am
what's a lot of sets?
IIRC, Arnold’s beginner program from his encyclopedia is 5 sets of 10-12 reps, on 3 or so exercises per muscle, working 3-4 muscles per session.
That’s a fucking lot of sets.
Reading stuff on the Golden Era and before on sites like Tight Tan Slacks of Dezo Ban and Jamie Lewis' stuff, it really does look like that was the norm. So many weightlifters, bodybuilders, and early powerlifters would do full body workouts with 5+ sets on everything, but it was like 8-10 exercises. I don't know if it's a survivor bias in that we remember those that could do it, or like they say about the Bulgarian system in that it reveals champions instead of building them, or if there really is something to people just being tougher then, but the workloads were crazy.
The "Golden Era" guys did lots of things to their own detriment. Arnolds did ridiculous long sets to "Burn in" the cuts on his quads. Compare his quads to any modern Open BBer, or even to some of the Classic guys like Bumstead. Sometimes success in an endeavour is in spite of our best efforts, not because of tham.
Hey everybody, when I bench, I have the tendency to have an uneven bar path (my left hand tends to be lower than my right hand), and I believe that this is causing me problems when lifting heavier loads.
Did any of you experience this ? What are some possible causes for it and what are some ideas to fix it ?
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:54 am
Hey everybody, when I bench, I have the tendency to have an uneven bar path (my left hand tends to be lower than my right hand), and I believe that this is causing me problems when lifting heavier loads.
Did any of you experience this ? What are some possible causes for it and what are some ideas to fix it ?
Thanks a lot.
By “lower,” do you mean that your left hand lags behind your right hand as you press up? Or do you mean that your left hand drifts away from you as you press such that the bar isn’t exactly perpendocular to your body / the bench?
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:54 am
Hey everybody, when I bench, I have the tendency to have an uneven bar path (my left hand tends to be lower than my right hand), and I believe that this is causing me problems when lifting heavier loads.
Did any of you experience this ? What are some possible causes for it and what are some ideas to fix it ?
Thanks a lot.
By “lower,” do you mean that your left hand lags behind your right hand as you press up? Or do you mean that your left hand drifts away from you as you press such that the bar isn’t exactly perpendocular to your body / the bench?
Taken to the extreme it would be something like this picture:
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:54 am
Hey everybody, when I bench, I have the tendency to have an uneven bar path (my left hand tends to be lower than my right hand), and I believe that this is causing me problems when lifting heavier loads.
Did any of you experience this ? What are some possible causes for it and what are some ideas to fix it ?
Thanks a lot.
Best guess would be left tricep is significantly weaker. Could also be something in the left shoulder that means it's less stable.
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:54 am
Hey everybody, when I bench, I have the tendency to have an uneven bar path (my left hand tends to be lower than my right hand), and I believe that this is causing me problems when lifting heavier loads.
Did any of you experience this ? What are some possible causes for it and what are some ideas to fix it ?
Thanks a lot.
Best guess would be left tricep is significantly weaker. Could also be something in the left shoulder that means it's less stable.
Have you had a previous injury to the left arm?
Fortunately I never experienced any shoulder or arm injury.
Now one triceps could be weaker than the other for all I know. I don't know how to test this. Maybe with some unilateral work ?
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:54 am
Hey everybody, when I bench, I have the tendency to have an uneven bar path (my left hand tends to be lower than my right hand), and I believe that this is causing me problems when lifting heavier loads.
Did any of you experience this ? What are some possible causes for it and what are some ideas to fix it ?
Thanks a lot.
Best guess would be left tricep is significantly weaker. Could also be something in the left shoulder that means it's less stable.
Have you had a previous injury to the left arm?
Fortunately I never experienced any shoulder or arm injury.
Now one triceps could be weaker than the other for all I know. I don't know how to test this. Maybe with some unilateral work ?
That should do it. I did have a very mild form of this issue a few years ago, but only with peri-maximal loads and it went away without me having to do anything.
The only other thing that occurs to me is that possibly it might be worth looking at what your shoulders are doing. If the left moves slightly differently to the right, my guess would be that could impact how well you can extend your arm while benching.
Possibly one way to look at that would be to film yourself doing pullups with your shirt off. If you notice your shoulders moving differently, that could be something to look at as a cause as well.
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:54 am
Hey everybody, when I bench, I have the tendency to have an uneven bar path (my left hand tends to be lower than my right hand), and I believe that this is causing me problems when lifting heavier loads.
Did any of you experience this ? What are some possible causes for it and what are some ideas to fix it ?
Thanks a lot.
Best guess would be left tricep is significantly weaker. Could also be something in the left shoulder that means it's less stable.
Have you had a previous injury to the left arm?
Fortunately I never experienced any shoulder or arm injury.
Now one triceps could be weaker than the other for all I know. I don't know how to test this. Maybe with some unilateral work ?
That should do it. I did have a very mild form of this issue a few years ago, but only with peri-maximal loads and it went away without me having to do anything.
The only other thing that occurs to me is that possibly it might be worth looking at what your shoulders are doing. If the left moves slightly differently to the right, my guess would be that could impact how well you can extend your arm while benching.
Possibly one way to look at that would be to film yourself doing pullups with your shirt off. If you notice your shoulders moving differently, that could be something to look at as a cause as well.
That sounds like a good idea. I wouldn't have thought about that. I'm going to try. Anyways, thanks a lot for your input man, much appreciated.
PS: now I have an excuse to remove my shirt in the gym ...
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:54 am
Hey everybody, when I bench, I have the tendency to have an uneven bar path (my left hand tends to be lower than my right hand), and I believe that this is causing me problems when lifting heavier loads.
Did any of you experience this ? What are some possible causes for it and what are some ideas to fix it ?
Thanks a lot.
By “lower,” do you mean that your left hand lags behind your right hand as you press up? Or do you mean that your left hand drifts away from you as you press such that the bar isn’t exactly perpendocular to your body / the bench?
Taken to the extreme it would be something like this picture:
Of course, mine is not as crooked as the picture
Got it. Of course if it’s a strength imbalance that’ll need to be fixed, perhaps with unilateral work as MarkKO and you have said. That said, when I’ve had this issue, and I have had it, a few times, I’ve always noticed that for whatever reason I’d begun to feel the weight differently in each hand. Correcting that - I like to do so by focusing hard on pushing through my pinkies - fixed it every time.
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:54 am
Hey everybody, when I bench, I have the tendency to have an uneven bar path (my left hand tends to be lower than my right hand), and I believe that this is causing me problems when lifting heavier loads.
Did any of you experience this ? What are some possible causes for it and what are some ideas to fix it ?
Thanks a lot.
By “lower,” do you mean that your left hand lags behind your right hand as you press up? Or do you mean that your left hand drifts away from you as you press such that the bar isn’t exactly perpendocular to your body / the bench?
Taken to the extreme it would be something like this picture:
Of course, mine is not as crooked as the picture
Got it. Of course if it’s a strength imbalance that’ll need to be fixed, perhaps with unilateral work as MarkKO and you have said. That said, when I’ve had this issue, and I have had it, a few times, I’ve always noticed that for whatever reason I’d begun to feel the weight differently in each hand. Correcting that - I like to do so by focusing hard on pushing through my pinkies - fixed it every time.
I'm going to give this a try .Thanks for the advice dude !
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:54 am
Hey everybody, when I bench, I have the tendency to have an uneven bar path (my left hand tends to be lower than my right hand), and I believe that this is causing me problems when lifting heavier loads.
Did any of you experience this ? What are some possible causes for it and what are some ideas to fix it ?
Thanks a lot.
Mine gets like this sometimes. Pin bench at chest height might help. One side will hit the pins first and if it’s purely a habit thing then you’ll quickly figure out how to make them both touch at the same time.
Also try to film a set from directly above. Sometimes an uneven bar viewed from the front is also uneven from the top down if you’re twisting the bar. You’ll also be able to see if you’re pulling one shoulder into a different position than the other and if your upper body is straight in relation to the bench/your legs etc.
