The Long Pump

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

it's weird to think we (and many members of the alt health community) are living in an intentionally induced constant state of it. *shrug*

I mean, isn't it a good thing ?

[broseph]

it's weird to think we (and many members of the alt health community) are living in an intentionally induced constant state of it. *shrug*

I mean, isn't it a good thing ?

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. But also *shrug* because inflammation is one of the Boogymen du jour.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

it's weird to think we (and many members of the alt health community) are living in an intentionally induced constant state of it. *shrug*

I mean, isn't it a good thing ?

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. But also *shrug* because inflammation is one of the Boogymen du jour.

Oh for sure. The fitness/alternative health people (sad to say there's a big intersection of the two communities) love to scare everyone with things they don't even understand: nutrient deficiencies, antinutrients, testosterone, cortisol, inflammation, injury risk and whatever shit.

[mbasic]

I was watching this video and it made me think of this thread.

Time stamped tidbit, goes for about a minute:



"Most lifters are essentially continuously in a state of edema"
"If you work out frequently ... you are pretty much permanently swollen"

This has always makes me wonder about most of those "scientific studies" that compare protocol A to B when they use electromyography, Dexa, ultrasounds, etc etc. to determine subject A experiences "13.7% more hypertrophy" than subject B .... or whatever. It doesn't neccessarliy mean more contractile units were built up/actual muscle was built. Sure maybe sometimes those observed hypertrophy gains correlate with a strength improvement, but not always ....

[dw]

I was watching this video and it made me think of this thread.

Time stamped tidbit, goes for about a minute:



"Most lifters are essentially continuously in a state of edema"
"If you work out frequently ... you are pretty much permanently swollen"

This has always makes me wonder about most of those "scientific studies" that compare protocol A to B when they use electromyography, Dexa, ultrasounds, etc etc. to determine subject A experiences "13.7% more hypertrophy" than subject B .... or whatever. It doesn't neccessarliy mean more contractile units were built up/actual muscle was built. Sure maybe sometimes those observed hypertrophy gains correlate with a strength improvement, but not always ....

I may be wrong but I think they measure hypertrophy by actually biopsying some muscle fibers and measuring CSA. So I assume edema is not a factor.

Idk though, all of my knowledge of this stuff is hazy memories from SBS articles and podcasts.

[mbasic]

I may be wrong but I think they measure hypertrophy by actually biopsying some muscle fibers and measuring CSA. So I assume edema is not a factor.
Idk though, all of my knowledge of this stuff is hazy memories from SBS articles and podcasts.

They do that sometimes, normally looking at fiber type, of if muscle cells themselves have grown.... I think. Its very invasive as you can imagine.

I think most they use: dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

[broseph]

@mbasic I hadn't even considered those implications... At the end of any given study, the bros might just be swollen and not actually swol.

[mbasic]

@mbasic I hadn't even considered those implications... At the end of any given study, the bros might just be swollen and not actually swol.

It probably correlates a little, but things like:

it has become quite popular in fitness guru circles to say that "anything in the rep range between 6 and 35 rep sets are equally effective for hypertrophy ...because studies say so.". No shit, 35 reps.

I'd put my money on the bros doing 6-12 reps. Guys doing 35 reps are just constantly inflamed to a higher degree of inflammation. And keep in mind most studies go for something like 8-12 weeks or something.

OR

From what I understand through training (perhaps higher rep, lactate type stuff, etc), you are causing an adaptation (along with other stuff) for the muscles to store more glycogen, and along with that there is certain amount of water bound to the glycogen .... so this is just another form of swolenfulness.

But fuck it, if I look good so be it.

[DCR]

@mbasic I hadn't even considered those implications... At the end of any given study, the bros might just be swollen and not actually swol.

It probably correlates a little, but things like:

it has become quite popular in fitness guru circles to say that "anything in the rep range between 6 and 35 rep sets are equally effective for hypertrophy ...because studies say so.". No shit, 35 reps.

I'd put my money on the bros doing 6-12 reps.

No one who’s done this for more than five minutes would bet against you.

I think even the once popular 15s are mostly silly for gear free brahs.

[Hardartery]

I think maybe it should be considered how the different things affect appearance. General inflammation is not really ideal from a "Swole" perspective, it is indistinct size and just kind of obscures things in a form of bloat. It's like edema, which goes to how any extra water may or may not be stored as a result of said training. Just general water is not ideal from the perspective of wanting any form of pump. An actual pump. as in the muscles appear inflated, really has to be intracellular to achieve the desired results. The rep range really comes into play when considering how many you COULD have done. If you can do 30 reps, and you only do 12, you burned calories but not much else.

Hypertrophy being the same might be true to an extent, but seriously you can't make a real comparison in a study. How participant A reacts and how participant B reacts is not the same even if they do exactly the same thing and are identical in strength and training experience. From an N=1 perspective, the only thing I have ever done high reps is legs. I have done 20 reps squats blocks and I crank 15-20 reps sets of seated extensions at times now. The least "Swole" thing on me is my legs, they are disproportionately small relative to my upper body just like most SM and PL guys. The reps didn't induce any great hypertrophy in me, even if Tom Platz swears by sets of 20-25 for size. I am not the biggest guy, but I rarely feel small. My thighs are somewhere between 26 and 28 inches, which might sound large to some but doesn't look it. I have virtually no muscle definition in my legs above the knees, and no amount of pump is going to affect that. They are not pumped after an average squat session, they may get a pump from iso work but it is short lived. Taking 2 weeks off to vacation in Italy produced no notable difference in me, save my thighs and glutes were slightly larger than before the 2 weeks off. That is likely edema from flying, it seems to have already disappeared after a few days in the US not flying.

[platypus]

I don't think I've experienced the long pump from lifting, but when I did the frequency method/gtg for chinups and pushups, my short term pumps were frequent enough to become a long pump.

[broseph]

@mbasic, @DCR, and @Hardartery, you guys are all saying high rep (let's say 20-30 reps taken to/near failure) sets are of little value for hypertrophy (especially for a natty)?

[Hardartery]

@mbasic, @DCR, and @Hardartery, you guys are all saying high rep (let's say 20-30 reps taken to/near failure) sets are of little value for hypertrophy (especially for a natty)?

Speaking for me, I think they are great for tendonitis/overuse pain, and probably a pump (Either long or short) and very little else. I believe it's better to up the weight a little and hit fewer reps, but I'm no doctor.

[DCR]

mbasic, DCR, and Hardartery, you guys are all saying high rep (let's say 20-30 reps taken to/near failure) sets are of little value for hypertrophy (especially for a natty)?

Generally yes, that's my view. Can't provide any scientific basis and know that there are studies allegedly showing otherwise, none of which I believe. They never did anything for me or anyone that I've ever known who wasn't geared or the son of Jor-El. Even with gear, I've also very rarely seen anything in that range mentioned by any pro bodybuilder, other than say a burnout set of leg extensions to finish off the day. (Admittedly my reading on what the pros do ended around 2011.)

20-rep squats are an exception (in my experience), but that's because "20-rep squats" really aren't a 20-rep set. They're a 10 or so rep set that gets extended as you stand there resting (dying) so that you can pump out more. If you'd have tried to get rep 11 or 12, without standing there for half a minute, you'd have failed there. It's rest/pause work, just without putting the bar down. Totally different animal.

[mbasic]

mbasic, DCR, and Hardartery, you guys are all saying high rep (let's say 20-30 reps taken to/near failure) sets are of little value for hypertrophy (especially for a natty)?

All I'm saying is I keep hearing "35 reps is almost the same at 6 reps because 'science' *waves arms* "

25-35 reps .... yes, in the context of comparing a 'reasonable' rep range of 5-15 (group A in a study) vs 25-35 (group B) ..... yes, they are of little value compared to 5-15 rep sets.

wrt the topic of this thread, most of the size increase with those ultra high rep sets observed is likely (mostly) inflammation. Or the glycogen storage optimization theory-thing I spoke of....

Pretty sure over the last 1-10 years studies have shown metabolic stress ("lactic acid", -H ions, the Burn, dah PumP) doesn't drive hypertrophy all that much....if at all. Its all about tension and recruitment levels now AMIRITE?

35 reps is ridiculous.
Esp for a natty. I think your body-builder-quasi-doctor-science-guys like Isratel et al, are (self admitted) drug users, and have had success with "that" (20-35 rep sets; tempo 3-1-3 too btw)....and can't filter out their own bias from their own PED fueled ultra-high-rep results.

AND, most people don't do exclusively one or other, its normally BOTH (normal, and high reps)
Squats 3x8-10r
Leg Press 3x15r
Leg Extensions 4x20-30r
...so its hard to say what is driving hypertrophy, or which rep range moreso is ....

No one is doing:
Squats 3x20-25
LegPress 3x30
Leg Extensions: 3x30-35
....OR, the freaky looking freaks who are doing that, are usually drugged up BBers.

[broseph]

Thanks for the quick feedback, fellas.

I've been doing some higher rep stuff on my body-buildy movments lately (in addition to lower reps on the big lifts). I had been seeing size/shape improvements, and progressing in weight/reps.

It's funny because I was just starting to notice some stagnation with that stuff and was planning on transitioning to lower reps (8-12). I wonder if I had some low-hanging-high-rep-fruit to harvest after years of very low (3-5) rep work.

[xuerebx]

I suspect high reps might not be so beneficial not because they don't theoretically work, but because you're not actually getting the muscle close to failure, instead stopping because of the huge burn/giving up/boredom. Not sure what "high" means in this context, I think 35 is too high even in the literature. My "high" is 20 reps, usually in a range of 15-20, which I think is reasonable for certain exercises.

[Hardartery]

Thanks for the quick feedback, fellas.

I've been doing some higher rep stuff on my body-buildy movments lately (in addition to lower reps on the big lifts). I had been seeing size/shape improvements, and progressing in weight/reps.

It's funny because I was just starting to notice some stagnation with that stuff and was planning on transitioning to lower reps (8-12). I wonder if I had some low-hanging-high-rep-fruit to harvest after years of very low (3-5) rep work.

I think you are right on the low hanging fruit idea. We can't ever really say that something doesn't work, everything works, it's a matter of how well and when you try it. I think that there is very little ROI for reps above 15 for the most part though.