Things I believe but can't prove...

[DanCR]

BBing work is actually bullshit as far as injury avoidance or direct strength progression go. Seriously. They are way more likely to cause problems like tendonitis and in general make stuff hurt.

I think this is true in two contexts. First, there are single joint movements / machines that can put far too much stress on the joint, often with an unnatural pattern or shit leverage. For example, one set of leg extensions is all that it takes to turn my bad knee into a soccer ball. I don't have that issue with any compound leg movement. Second, I think that bro splits can bring on tendonitis quickly if not managed. Doing chest Mon, back Tues, delts Wed, etc., and taking everything to failure every time, is a recipe for elbow AIDS.

That said, of course with adequate recovery, I don't think there's any argument that SBD or their variations, done in a bodybuilding style, are more likely to cause injury than otherwise.

[Hanley]

The funny thing is, I think even on this forum there's a good number of people that were stronger back in the SS days than with what they're doing now that is supposedly more enlightened.

Who?

[quikky]

The funny thing is, I think even on this forum there's a good number of people that were stronger back in the SS days than with what they're doing now that is supposedly more enlightened.

Who?

That type of information ain't given out for free...

[xng]

The funny thing is, I think even on this forum there's a good number of people that were stronger back in the SS days than with what they're doing now that is supposedly more enlightened.

Who?

My best squat ever (STILL) occurred after a multi-year break from lifting, then four months of SSLP, then four months of Texas Method, during which eight months I gained 30 pounds and became 250 lb at 5'8".

My deadlift, bench, and OHP got better later, in absolute terms, even at a more sensible BW, under a more "lots of volume @8" regime. But that dang squat PR stands.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@xng I had a quick look at your log: nowadays you seem to be doing between 4 and 8 sets of squats a week (and the half of those are front squats which may or may not be helpful for your squat), whereas in the SSLP you'd be doing 15 sets of squats a week. Add to that a turbo-bulk and that's hardly surprising that your squat was much better during your SSLP days, since back then you essentially trained twice as much.

[rjharris]

whereas in the SSLP you'd be doing 15 sets of squats a week.

been a while, but i'm pretty sure vanilla sslp is 3 sets of fahve, 3 times a week, so 9 sets per week, right?

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

whereas in the SSLP you'd be doing 15 sets of squats a week.

been a while, but i'm pretty sure vanilla sslp is 3 sets of fahve, 3 times a week, so 9 sets per week, right?

Oh that's right. I should learn some math. Well in that case it's less clear cut ... Although it'd argue its still probably more stimulus, especially since the sets on SSLP will be closer to failure, but not twice as much stimulus, probably.

[DanCR]

whereas in the SSLP you'd be doing 15 sets of squats a week.

been a while, but i'm pretty sure vanilla sslp is 3 sets of fahve, 3 times a week, so 9 sets per week, right?

Oh that's right. I should learn some math. Well in that case it's less clear cut ... Although it'd argue its still probably more stimulus, especially since the sets on SSLP will be closer to failure, but not twice as much stimulus, probably.

This is the whole point.

[Hanley]

The funny thing is, I think even on this forum there's a good number of people that were stronger back in the SS days than with what they're doing now that is supposedly more enlightened.

Who?

That type of information ain't given out for free...

Perhaps this is free: what are the mechanistic causes of involuntary loss of rep velocity (don't use the word "fatigue") in an RPE 8+ set?

How do those mechanistic causal reductions in voluntary velocity = whole muscle increase in tension?

[quikky]

The funny thing is, I think even on this forum there's a good number of people that were stronger back in the SS days than with what they're doing now that is supposedly more enlightened.

Who?

That type of information ain't given out for free...

Perhaps this is free: what are the mechanistic causes of involuntary loss of rep velocity (don't use the word "fatigue") in an RPE 8+ set?

How do those mechanistic causal reductions in voluntary velocity = whole muscle increase in tension?

Well, involuntary loss of rep velocity occurs earlier than @8, more like ~@5-6ish, right? And, increases with higher RPEs until you hit zero, i.e. failure. My view is that when this drop occurs, mechanical tension is occurring at the muscle level, and is the main signaling mechanism for hypertrophy. Simply said, hard/ish reps are what grow muscles.

As far as precise causes down to the cellular level, I don't know enough to explain. I have some cursory knowledge of some of the processes that seem to trigger this, but not enough to really write about, or even express with any level of confidence.

Not sure if that answers your question though.

[Hanley]

The funny thing is, I think even on this forum there's a good number of people that were stronger back in the SS days than with what they're doing now that is supposedly more enlightened.

Who?

That type of information ain't given out for free...

Perhaps this is free: what are the mechanistic causes of involuntary loss of rep velocity (don't use the word "fatigue") in an RPE 8+ set?

How do those mechanistic causal reductions in voluntary velocity = whole muscle increase in tension?

Well, involuntary loss of rep velocity occurs earlier than @8, more like ~@5-6ish, right? And, increases with higher RPEs until you hit zero, i.e. failure. My view is that when this drop occurs, mechanical tension is occurring at the muscle level, and is the main signaling mechanism for hypertrophy. Simply said, hard/ish reps are what grow muscles.

As far as precise causes down to the cellular level, I don't know enough to explain. I have some cursory knowledge of some of the processes that seem to trigger this, but not enough to really write about, or even express with any level of confidence.

Not sure if that answers your question though.

I just really don't understand the stimulating reps idea. Like...a squat single @ 70% 1RM is...really fucking slow compared to max contractile velocity (in -- say -- a jump). The 6th rep in a squat set is really, really slow. And the RPE 9-10 reps in a squat set are really, really, really slow. But it's all fucking slow. You're certainly in the high-force extremes of some very hand-wavy force-velocity curve.

Fuckin stimulating reps

[quikky]

The funny thing is, I think even on this forum there's a good number of people that were stronger back in the SS days than with what they're doing now that is supposedly more enlightened.

Who?

That type of information ain't given out for free...

Perhaps this is free: what are the mechanistic causes of involuntary loss of rep velocity (don't use the word "fatigue") in an RPE 8+ set?

How do those mechanistic causal reductions in voluntary velocity = whole muscle increase in tension?

Well, involuntary loss of rep velocity occurs earlier than @8, more like ~@5-6ish, right? And, increases with higher RPEs until you hit zero, i.e. failure. My view is that when this drop occurs, mechanical tension is occurring at the muscle level, and is the main signaling mechanism for hypertrophy. Simply said, hard/ish reps are what grow muscles.

As far as precise causes down to the cellular level, I don't know enough to explain. I have some cursory knowledge of some of the processes that seem to trigger this, but not enough to really write about, or even express with any level of confidence.

Not sure if that answers your question though.

I just really don't understand the stimulating reps idea. Like...a squat single @ 70% 1RM is...really fucking slow compared to max contractile velocity (in -- say -- a jump). The 6th rep in a squat set is really, really slow. And the RPE 9-10 reps in a squat set are really, really, really slow. But it's all fucking slow. You're certainly in the high-force extremes of some very hand-wavy force-velocity curve.

Fuckin stimulating reps

I think this might help explain the force velocity issues you're concerned about better than I can:



My general takeaway is that the fibers we are trying to grow, i.e. largely the fast twitch ones, need to experience a high level of mechanical tension to produce a hypertrophic response. The tension is proportional to the amount of force required, i.e. either proximity to failure and/or absolute load. So, you can have max force, slowest contractile velocity, and high tension (1RM), vs low force, high velocity, low tension (a jump). It seems perhaps the confusing part is force exerted by the muscle as a whole, vs force experienced by mechanical tension by each fiber that is meant to hypertrophy from the stimulus applied to it.

[Hanley]

Maximal effort — if each rep of a set is performed with maximal effort, then motor unit recruitment is still high (essentially maximal) during every rep of a set, but movement velocity is too fast on the early reps, so the forces exerted by each individual muscle fiber are too small to trigger them to increase in size afterwards. Only as fatigue is incurred towards the end of the set does movement velocity reduce to the point where forces exerted by each fiber are sufficiently high to trigger hypertrophy.

Meh. He’s just making shit up.

[mgil]

Extrapolation from personal experience (fatiguing reps)?

While I’m in terrible lifting condition, fast clean reps and avoiding slow grinds are going to go a lot further than constant slow reps inducing lots of stress.

[quikky]

Maximal effort — if each rep of a set is performed with maximal effort, then motor unit recruitment is still high (essentially maximal) during every rep of a set, but movement velocity is too fast on the early reps, so the forces exerted by each individual muscle fiber are too small to trigger them to increase in size afterwards. Only as fatigue is incurred towards the end of the set does movement velocity reduce to the point where forces exerted by each fiber are sufficiently high to trigger hypertrophy.

Meh. He’s just making shit up.

His earlier explanation is that for fast reps like that, the crossbridging is quick on the fibers driven by high threshold motor units, which keeps the mechanical tension low. So if you were doing like a 70% weight, which for the sake of example was a 10RM for you, the fast, relative to the later reps, early 4 or 5 reps would not produce much tension on those fibers and would not be very stimulating for hypertrophy.

Do you believe that's incorrect?

[Hanley]

Maximal effort — if each rep of a set is performed with maximal effort, then motor unit recruitment is still high (essentially maximal) during every rep of a set, but movement velocity is too fast on the early reps, so the forces exerted by each individual muscle fiber are too small to trigger them to increase in size afterwards. Only as fatigue is incurred towards the end of the set does movement velocity reduce to the point where forces exerted by each fiber are sufficiently high to trigger hypertrophy.

Meh. He’s just making shit up.

His earlier explanation is that for fast reps like that, the crossbridging is quick on the fibers driven by high threshold motor units, which keeps the mechanical tension low. So if you were doing like a 70% weight, which for the sake of example was a 10RM for you, the fast, relative to the later reps, early 4 or 5 reps would not produce much tension on those fibers and would not be very stimulating for hypertrophy.

Do you believe that's incorrect?

The tension is definitely not “low”. The first rep in a set at 70% and the last are still super slow compared to max contractile velocity.

I think he’s being intellectually reckless with his casual and very hand-wavy application of the force -velocity curve in his stimulating reps model.

Admittedly, Im strongly biased against his conjectures because I’ve had lots of size & strength gains using months-long blocks of almost exclusively “non-stimulating reps” (like 8-12 sets of 5 at 70%).

[quikky]

Maximal effort — if each rep of a set is performed with maximal effort, then motor unit recruitment is still high (essentially maximal) during every rep of a set, but movement velocity is too fast on the early reps, so the forces exerted by each individual muscle fiber are too small to trigger them to increase in size afterwards. Only as fatigue is incurred towards the end of the set does movement velocity reduce to the point where forces exerted by each fiber are sufficiently high to trigger hypertrophy.

Meh. He’s just making shit up.

His earlier explanation is that for fast reps like that, the crossbridging is quick on the fibers driven by high threshold motor units, which keeps the mechanical tension low. So if you were doing like a 70% weight, which for the sake of example was a 10RM for you, the fast, relative to the later reps, early 4 or 5 reps would not produce much tension on those fibers and would not be very stimulating for hypertrophy.

Do you believe that's incorrect?

The tension is definitely not “low”. The first rep in a set at 70% and the last are still super slow compared to max contractile velocity.

I think he’s being intellectually reckless with his casual and very hand-wavy application of the force -velocity curve in his stimulating reps model.

Admittedly, Im strongly biased against his conjectures because I’ve had lots of size & strength gains using months-long blocks of almost exclusively “non-stimulating reps” (like 8-12 sets of 5 at 70%).

Yeah I'm not sure if what you're saying and what you've experienced is all that contradictory to what Chris is saying in this instance, if we add a few nuances. The general model of stimulating reps is just that, general, and applies to individual muscles when training in a vaccum. In reality things get more complicated, especially when it comes to compound lifts, and more experienced lifters such as yourself.

The hypertrophy response you get in any muscle might follow the stimulating reps model, but might seem to fail when many muscles are involved. For example, IIRC, it has been measured that when benching, you might get high recruitment and tension on the pecs with loads as low as 50%, and as the load increases, front delts and triceps get recruited to do more and more work. This of course varies by person, but I recall reading that a while back. The idea then is that an experienced lifter can potentially get a lot of stimulating reps on the pecs, which also happen to be the prime mover on the bench, with a relatively low effort on a per set basis. I think the same can likely apply to squats and other compounds.

I think the above, plus real world considerations of fatigue, make compound training more complicated than just talking about stimulating reps as it can fail to predict responses. My point ultimately is that on any single muscle in isolation, 5@3 is likely useless, 5@5 barely so, 5@8 good, and 5@10 maximal when it comes to growth. To me, this is that simple for a lot of bodybuilding work that's more isolated and stable, and not quite so simple for the big compounds, where I am guessing a lot of your observed inconsistencies come from.

[Hanley]

5@3 is likely useless, 5@5 barely so, 5@8 good, and 5@10 maximal when it comes to growth. To me, this is that simple for a lot of bodybuilding work that's more isolated and stable, and not quite so simple for the big compounds, where I am guessing a lot of your observed inconsistencies come from.

Yeah, but in these sets (5@3, 5@5, 5@8, 5@10) the absolute load is different and the higher RPE sets will clearly yield more muscle tension.

My issue with model is the claim that fatigue-induced velocity loss = increase muscle tension (because [hand wave] force velocity curve. There's a massive explanatory gap there....and I haven't really seen much compelling evidence (you'd think the evidence would be clear as fuck for such a central physiological principle).

Take 8RM of....a bicep curl

I'm not sure 4 set of 6 @ RPE 8-9 or 6 sets of 4 @ RPEs 6-7ish would actually be all that more hypertrophic than 24 high-effort singles @ RPE 3-4ish (zero "stimulating reps" per the model). I think you'd go slightly insane doing 24 singles, but...that's irrelevant.

^ on something like 8RM of bench or squat it gets even murkier as you've mentioned. Now, the singles probably WILL yield greater increases in 1RM strength and, thus, increased muscular tension in future sessions (but that's, largely, an aside).

Note: I'm not advocating any particular approach to training (I go to failure all the time)....I just think the effective reps model is...lacking. And the amount of unsupported conjecture drives me slightly crazy.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

The problem with the effective reps model is that it seems to only apply in cases in which it is not useful (isolation exercises). For compound exercises the model does not work and for isolation exercises the model works but its predictions are irrelevant. If you are doing isolation exercises, what is the reason for not taking it to failure ?

[Hardartery]

I think this might help explain the force velocity issues you're concerned about better than I can:



My general takeaway is that the fibers we are trying to grow, i.e. largely the fast twitch ones, need to experience a high level of mechanical tension to produce a hypertrophic response. The tension is proportional to the amount of force required, i.e. either proximity to failure and/or absolute load. So, you can have max force, slowest contractile velocity, and high tension (1RM), vs low force, high velocity, low tension (a jump). It seems perhaps the confusing part is force exerted by the muscle as a whole, vs force experienced by mechanical tension by each fiber that is meant to hypertrophy from the stimulus applied to it.

I started to read this and had to stop and get my shovel to finish. And some muck boots. There's a verb in Spanish for this guy, "Cantinflear", from which the satirical actor Cantinflas derived his stage name. Seriously, that was an awful lot of total bullshit being paraded as fact, and what I gathered is that this guy probably has absolutely nothing of value to offer. Sorry if that is harsh, but it is what it is and a halfwit gym bro that can't tie his own shoes is probably giving better advice.

I would like to note as well that you said " The funny thing is, I think even on this forum there's a good number of people that were stronger back in the SS days than with what they're doing now that is supposedly more enlightened." and then proceeded to post a valueless article about hypertrophy. Entirely different pursuits. Training for strength will yield some hypertrophic gains, training specifically for hypertrophy hopefully gets you a little bigger and should not be expected to be useful for increased strength. And seriously, that Beardsley guy is an idiot.