The word is getting out.

[cwpick]

With everybody doing 5x5 ( me included) thought this was a funny article over at t-nation. Madcow would be happy to see a slow shift in the way people are training.

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=885232

 

[Jim Ouini]

I'd say the word is trickling pretty slowly, at least at my gym (Bally's).

I see more people squatting and deadlifting than I used to but it doesn't look like they're too serious - primarily quarter squatting and very experimental looking deads and it looks like they're doing it more for aerobics?

Occasionally I'll see a decent sized guy getting under some weight but then move onto leg press, hack squat, leg ext etc.

And I still get comments about squatting too deep (now that's surprise!), just last week in fact, and overtraining legs because wasn't I 'just squatting the other day?'

Even some of my friends who sometimes work in with me have asked me what I'm doing. They say it sounds interesting but none have asked too much more about the program, even though they acknowledge the gains I've made.

But I can understand since you pretty much have to turn what you've read for years upside down.

 

[Protobuilder]

There's a classroom full of chairs. They're all facing the front of the room. People come in and sit in the chairs. Then, one guy stands up and turns his chair around. Pretty soon, another person turns their chair around. Eventually, all the chairs are facing the back of the room.

. . . .

And then someone stands up and turns his chair around . . .

 

[Madcow2]

After reading the topic in the thread, what dismays me most is that so many people seem to think there is a difference in BBing and what they preceive as this 'new stuff'. All of the 'new stuff' is geared to hypertrophy - there are few dedicated 1RM programs on that site and most are all focused with core exercises in valid rep ranges (and workloads i.e. 10 sets of 3 program where still 30 reps but more than you can handle for 3x10 - the rep range stuff is not so black and white, generally it's high intensity/%1RM that forces workload down with low reps rather than it being innately ineffective).

I really consider all the fufu BBing isolation exercises to be in the realm of specialization. Meaning, they are things you can do to refine your physique as needed after you build muscle mass. Now that doesn't have to mean add 100lbs of muscle first but certainly if your primary goal is to get bigger and add significant muscle over the next 3 months, you'd be keeping that crap to a minimum if using it at all. Maybe spend the following 2 months doing all that once you've achieved the interim size goal.

Message being - the most efficient way to get big and pour on muscle is to increase capacity on the big core lifts while eating to gain. Capacity might be 5RM or 5x5 or 10RM or 3x10 but whichever you choose to use as your benchmark, your purpose should be to push it North and eat. It's very simple stuff yet people seem to think it is oh so different for bodybuilders. When they start realizing that bodybuilding is not some voodoo bullshit and that adding muscle is a fairly simple equation, basic process, and standard accross all humans regardless of whether or not they do it for looks or performance reasons, that will be the day I am impressed with change.

 

[Protobuilder]

I don't think they'd disagree with you, Madcow. I think they're saying that you get more hypertrophy by doing 3 sets of 10 rather than 10 sets of 3. And, like you said, you can "increase capacity" in either range, so, technically, they're getting stronger as well . . . they're just not moving their max strength up as much but in return, they're getting more hypertrophy. That's my take. And I don't know that that's incorrect really -- it seems pretty widely acknowledged that higher rep ranges will lead to more hypertrophy.

Now, the other issue w/ the BB'ing stuff is whether or not "working to, or even past, exhaustion" is the best way to induce hypertrophy. I think those guys like their "once a week" bodypart split, and they're "rebelling" against all the higher-frequency systems that are showing up (e.g., legs 3x/wk., etc.). Whether they're right or wrong on that one, I don't know, but the trend does seem to be towards bringing dual-factor theory into BB'ing.

 

[Madcow2]

I think they're saying that you get more hypertrophy by doing 3 sets of 10 rather than 10 sets of 3. And, like you said, you can "increase capacity" in either range, so, technically, they're getting stronger as well . . . they're just not moving their max strength up as much but in return, they're getting more hypertrophy. That's my take. And I don't know that that's incorrect really -- it seems pretty widely acknowledged that higher rep ranges will lead to more hypertrophy.

That's just it, "widely acknowledged" but not well understood and certainly not in a comprehensive manner that allows people to understand it at the very core. To be honest, I don't think rep range really matters all that much (look at WSB - it has proven much more effective for hypertrophy for many of the 'BBers' who've given it a whirl and this is not a program specifically designed for that purpose - as long as big lifts go up and you eat it really doesn't matter too much). It's more about workload, granted there is a density factor and time but this is why 10x3 is very solid for hypertrophy. Look at this fairly popular description:

1-3 Reps

In this repetition scheme Neural Efficiency (as well as some Myofibril Hypertrophy) occurs. Neural Efficiency increases the percentage of motor units that can be activated at any given time (CNS efficiency).

This has very little impact on size gains but increases strength will be definitely be great. Little to no protein turnover occurs when using this particular rep range as load is too high and mechanical work is too low.

The deal here on mechanical work is an intensity assumption i.e. workload is low because intensity is so darn high. 10x3 knocks that right out because intensity is low enough to allow for a very solid amount of mechanical work, for most people quite a bit more than they can handle for 3x10.

Granted sets of 10 (or moderate intensity) is a much more pure hypertrophy range (meaning the nature of the adaptation) but that doesn't mean you are going to maximize your body's hypertrophy over the long term by training in sets of 10. Neural gains can play a huge role in supporting hypertrophy development. This is why you see those outrageous gains in novices. They are improving neural efficiency without even specifically training for it simply because they are in such an adaptive state, and this neural efficiency is what allows progression that drives their hypertrophy gains. It's a synergistic relationship and even though 10 reps is a nice range for hypertrophic adaptation, that does not mean that over the long term this will continue or lead to the greatest amount of hypertrophy in an individual.

This is why 5x5 is fairly effective for hypertrophy over a long period as well as strength gains. The intensity is not so high as to force it to very low workload and highly neural (i.e. a few sets of very heavy singles). The workload winds up being fairly significant at 25 reps (think the common 3x10 or 3x8 or 2x15 - mechanical work here and we aren't even taking into account frequency) and at intensities where there is still a solid neural component. Plus, the benefit of this can be reaped in a more pure hypertrophy environment when switching back to higher reps later on and allowing that neural efficiency to build a nice long run of progression (so it works even for the disbelievers who say they've tried it all but don't grow with less than 8 reps - which I say they are either full of shit or know nothing about program design).

It's just not so black and white as people seem to think. It's not 10-12 reps for hypertrophy and 1-3 for strength. Just like frequency for program design can't be determined properly in isolation (i.e. volume, intensity --> workload), aligning number of reps in a set to a goal has to take into account similar factors.

 

[coolcolj]

That PRof X dude gets on my nerves...

 

[super_rice]

That PRof X dude gets on my nerves...

He gets on my nerves as well... I guess it's cool though when all you want to be is a slow chunk of meat.

 

[BiggT]

I tend to agree with Madcow on the rep ranges......The main problem with bodybuilding is that people do really think there is voo-doo and magic involved. I always tell people that the muscles are STUPID.....they can't count, add, multiple, tell cadences apart, all they know is work, all they respond to is total work...if you do 3 sets of 10 with a weight over a period of time, you can do 10 sets of 3 with the same weight over the same time, and you've done the same amount of work over the same about of time. MOST likely, the 10x3 is much greater than the 3x10 weight, thus 30 total reps can be completed in the same amount of time and the workload will be even greater because the bar weight was more. Same for 3x8 or 5x5. In fact, the lower reps are easier to progress with, leading to faster gains. Again, this is if workload is the same.....5x5 is the same as 3x8, but 1x5 isn't. BB doesn't seem to grasp progress though, they think the number of reps is magic and that growth occurs from pumping blood/nutrients into the muscle and getting sore.

I just cringe when people say things like Madcow pointed out such as "1-5 reps is strength" and "8-12 reps is hypertrophy".....it is as gay and nonsensical as saying low reps make you bulky and high reps cut you up.

To me, this is just common sense stuff......but bodybuilding is the only sport/activity in this country that relies totally on gym lore, voodoo, myths, pumps, and utter horseshit, rather than common sense.

When you eliminate pro bodybuilders who have the luxury of test levels 900,000 times that of a normal man and would grow big forearms from jerking off, I just say look at trainees.......Look at strength athletes like shot putters, football linebackers and linemen, wrestlers, etc.....they all can gain thick slabs of muscle 'training for strength'. Then look at all the kids on discussion forums and all the guys at commercial gyms pumping and curling themselves to nowhere, then thinking that they have 'maxed out their potential' at 5' 10 and 175lbs and are now ready to take the plunge and try steroids.

I am glad people are realizing that proper training leads to size, but I don't recall one of the posters on that t-mag link grasping any of it, BB and strength training SHOULD NOT be two different things...What is a BB workout to these guys? Supersets, giant sets, trisets, Weider's garbage???......the idea of progressive overload works for anyone and everyone who tries it......so called "BB workouts" work for people running massive amounts of gear, and even then, they are far from optimal.

 

[Protobuilder]

Great info. from you guys as always. BiggT -- just want to challenge one point: if 1-5 isn't for strength, and the body only sees work, etc., then what about OLY lifters who train pretty exclusively in the 1-3 range? I know they don't eat to get big but it just seems to me that you WILL get bigger if you are using more reps. I think it has something to do w/ exhaustion and breaking down proteins, etc., which maybe really kicks into high gear once you have enough time under tension or something. I'm just speculating here.

 

[harhar]

He gets on my nerves as well... I guess it's cool though when all you want to be is a slow chunk of meat.

LOL. Yay for OL.

 

[mekannik]

Personally I have been following the 10x3 for almost a year now, with the past few months focusing more on my diet to enhance effects of lifting. This rep/set scheme has become my favorite, displacing the 1-6 method, even though that has proven better for me with overall strength.

Supersetting antagonistic muscle groups with 10x3 cuts down on my gym time and helps balance out my front-back, top-bottom strength ratios. Plus the added benefit (mentally) of using visibly higher loads feeds the ego.

The only times I do not follow either of these schemes is with the olympic lifts and variations thereof.

 

[BiggT]

Great info. from you guys as always. BiggT -- just want to challenge one point: if 1-5 isn't for strength, and the body only sees work, etc., then what about OLY lifters who train pretty exclusively in the 1-3 range? I know they don't eat to get big but it just seems to me that you WILL get bigger if you are using more reps. I think it has something to do w/ exhaustion and breaking down proteins, etc., which maybe really kicks into high gear once you have enough time under tension or something. I'm just speculating here.

I might not have typed that as clear as I wanted to.....I do think 1-5 reps is a great strength training range, and near max effort singles, doubles, and triples are heavily neural. What I was referring to is that just because something is sets of 3 or sets of 4 or sets of 5 doesn't have to mean that is is strength training and nothing more simply because it is at or below that 'magical number of 8 reps'......if you work up to one heavy triple where the 3rd rep is an all out exertion and you can't do another, then I don't feel that is optimal for hypertrophy, but if it is a weight you can handle for 10 sets of 3 and get all your reps and still work hard, and it takes no longer to complete the 10x3 than it would for you to do 3 sets of 10, the body is still doing 30 total reps with a weight. And if you're progressing the weight eash session and keeping sets/reps constant, then hypertrophy will occur, and this is more effective than blindly pumping away on all sorts of exercises just trying to hit '8-12' reps because that is a 'hypertrophy range' and keep the muscle under tension and force blood to the area, etc, etc.

For Olympic lifters, it depends on the lifter and the weight class.....Look at Pyros Dimas' physique, particularly his quads, he definitely gets a hypertrophy response....I think Olympic lifters have the best traps and upper backs in the world as a whole, and they certainly aren't doing shrugs for 3 sets of 12 once a week as part of their workout, but rather shrugging dynamically as either part of the lifts or doing jump shurgs in their strength training ranges ...in fact most of the lifters above 175lbs or so have noticeable muscle mass, and if you can put aside the fact that diet is responsible for their bodyfat levels, the superheavies have an ungodly amount of muscle on their bodies.

 

[bignate73]

Great info. from you guys as always. BiggT -- just want to challenge one point: if 1-5 isn't for strength, and the body only sees work, etc., then what about OLY lifters who train pretty exclusively in the 1-3 range? I know they don't eat to get big but it just seems to me that you WILL get bigger if you are using more reps. I think it has something to do w/ exhaustion and breaking down proteins, etc., which maybe really kicks into high gear once you have enough time under tension or something. I'm just speculating here.

primarily concentric work, less muscle damage for the most part. the negative is primarily where hypertrophy is stimulated as it does more damage to cross bridges. also a great deal of CNS optimization compared to a slower less explosive typical exercise. muscle recruitment is efficient and only the needed motor units are fired to be explosive enough.

thats my take on it.

 

[BiggT]

The hypertrophy I see in olympic lifters, I see in the quads (squats/front squats), shoulders (overhead work to train the jerk), and upper back (dynamic pulling).

Olympic Lifters do not use set/rep schemes like 3x12 or 4x8, but they do a high number of low rep sets with anywhere from maybe 80%-95% of a 1rm. Which is similar to a guy benches 375x1 doing 10x3 with 335 and progressing all 10 sets of 3 weekly. I don't feel that this is any better or worse than using 4x8 and progressively increasing weights in the same manner.....but I was just trying to point out that something doesn't HAVE to be 8 reps or higher to be hypertrophy work....and more importantly for the BB community, just because something is 8-12 reps, doesn't mean it is optimal for hypertrophy if you're doing something different every week, just blindly trying to get sore and pumped and hit '8-12 reps' with no plan for progress whatsoever.

Thats basically what I was trying to get at above, but sometimes I can get a little verbal diaherrea.

 

[Protobuilder]

if you work up to one heavy triple where the 3rd rep is an all out exertion and you can't do another, then I don't feel that is optimal for hypertrophy, but if it is a weight you can handle for 10 sets of 3 and get all your reps and still work hard, and it takes no longer to complete the 10x3 than it would for you to do 3 sets of 10, the body is still doing 30 total reps with a weight. And if you're progressing the weight eash session and keeping sets/reps constant, then hypertrophy will occur, and this is more effective than blindly pumping away on all sorts of exercises just trying to hit '8-12' reps because that is a 'hypertrophy range' and keep the muscle under tension and force blood to the area, etc, etc.

Nice.

How important is it to overall load that you perform the 10x3 or the 3x10 in the same timeframe. I just can't see being able to do it w/ high %1RM on the 3x10.

 

[BiggT]

Nice.

How important is it to overall load that you perform the 10x3 or the 3x10 in the same timeframe. I just can't see being able to do it w/ high %1RM on the 3x10.

I would think it is important because the body responds to total workload, and that all time under tension really is, is total workload, so the body is being stressed for 30 total reps completed over x amount of time. How important this actually is, I don't know, but what I was getting at is that the 10x3 shouldn't be done with so much weight that they are all out max effort triples and you need to rest 10 min between sets and it is ok to miss reps, etc.

I think it would be doable with a relatively high percentage......a guy with a 400 bench would be at 325 if you took 80%....10 triples with 325 for a 400 bencher probably would be too light, saying you take maybe 3 minutes between sets, I'd think the lifter could handle 340 or 345 for the work sets.

 

[Protobuilder]

You must spread Karma around before giving it to BiggT again.

 

[silver_shadow]

i'm pretty late on this thread... just a few things i'd like to point out.
madcow, u said that bber's benefit from WSB. that is because wsb is specifically broken into 3 different phases all at once. unlike some other routines in which the guy will cycle... some weeks of hypertrophy, then some weeks of speed work and then some weeks of maxing out... first of all, where does one draw the line between these 3 if one were to cycle? so that said, all 3 are done every wk in wsb... so hypertrophy was intended to be a part of the program.
the other thing i wanted to say... u say that all those isolation movements that BBers typically do are good for refining after bulking... i'd like to take a more extreme stand on that and say that it's a waste of time and bodybuilders are better off doing the same compound movements during a cutting phase as they would (or should anyway) do during a bulking phase... the only differences would obviously be diet, the poundages he is lifting and off course cardio (HIIT preferably).

 

[Madcow2]

i'm pretty late on this thread... just a few things i'd like to point out.
madcow, u said that bber's benefit from WSB. that is because wsb is specifically broken into 3 different phases all at once. unlike some other routines in which the guy will cycle... some weeks of hypertrophy, then some weeks of speed work and then some weeks of maxing out... first of all, where does one draw the line between these 3 if one were to cycle? so that said, all 3 are done every wk in wsb... so hypertrophy was intended to be a part of the program.

What I was getting at is that the primary goal of WSB is not hypertrophy and that it still works far better than most programs that people organize for hypertrophy as a primary goal. Now the detail side, every PL program has hypertrophy elements. You just can't do enough ME or very high intensity work so there is always a give and take. Westside makes it speed and assistance to make it more pertinent but that aside there will always be lower intensity higher volume workload in any program (even in OL if you look away from the classic lifts and examine assistance or squatting). So yes, this can cause hypertrophy and I think Louie and Dave have plainly said it, but the primary purpose of the program is not hypertrophy and yet it still produces what I consider to be far more successful hypertrophy results than most of the rather butt-head bodybuilding stuff you see in the gyms. Big lifts moving north combined with eating = hypertrophy.

 

[Madcow2]

Nice.

How important is it to overall load that you perform the 10x3 or the 3x10 in the same timeframe. I just can't see being able to do it w/ high %1RM on the 3x10.

FYI - he's holding time constant to make a point and make it easy to grasp the concept of workload in isolation. Workload will definitely be higher, time might be marginally longer and this can have an impact which is going to be very hard to estimate and may or may not be significant (thus it was held constant to make the example more clear).

 

[silver_shadow]

What I was getting at is that the primary goal of WSB is not hypertrophy and that it still works far better than most programs that people organize for hypertrophy as a primary goal. Now the detail side, every PL program has hypertrophy elements. You just can't do enough ME or very high intensity work so there is always a give and take. Westside makes it speed and assistance to make it more pertinent but that aside there will always be lower intensity higher volume workload in any program (even in OL if you look away from the classic lifts and examine assistance or squatting). So yes, this can cause hypertrophy and I think Louie and Dave have plainly said it, but the primary purpose of the program is not hypertrophy and yet it still produces what I consider to be far more successful hypertrophy results than most of the rather butt-head bodybuilding stuff you see in the gyms. Big lifts moving north combined with eating = hypertrophy.

if there was some confusion, i was agreeing with u, just wanted to pick up from where u left off about hypertrophy in relation to WSB for the benefit of those who think that WSB will make u strong without hypertrophy (or for that matter any PL program as u said).
i'd like to know ur thoughts on my other comment on the BBer's muscle refining exercises.

 

[Madcow2]

the other thing i wanted to say... u say that all those isolation movements that BBers typically do are good for refining after bulking... i'd like to take a more extreme stand on that and say that it's a waste of time and bodybuilders are better off doing the same compound movements during a cutting phase as they would (or should anyway) do during a bulking phase... the only differences would obviously be diet, the poundages he is lifting and off course cardio (HIIT preferably).

Well I try not to be too extreme because you wind up alienating people. What I tend to do is suggest a program like 5x5 or any program based primarily on getting the big compounds up and have them do it for a period of bulking or whatever. After that, their whole belief system seems to change and it's a non-issue, they might still use isolation work but it's far more rationally applied. Sort of like explaining to someone via the human biology/physiology that the testicles are a vulnerable area, much easier and more effective to give them a kick or smack and let the realization settle over them.

I think there might be some benefit in certain periods to increasing isolation work (not at the expense of dropping core exercises though). Not in pure bulking and likely not in normal cutting but maybe a sub-period where they want to work on aesthetic or functional weak points. Maybe precontest. I just kind of throw this out there as an option, most people need a lot less isolation work than they believe and to be honest I think it should be kept to the bare minimum unless there is a specific current need.

 

[Madcow2]

I am glad people are realizing that proper training leads to size, but I don't recall one of the posters on that t-mag link grasping any of it,

That was the bummer for me too. So much of training is so very simple yet it takes 10 times as long to sink in for a bodybuilder because they've been so screwed over by the press, supplement companies, and roid boys for the past 25 years.

 

[silver_shadow]

Sort of like explaining to someone via the human biology/physiology that the testicles are a vulnerable area, much easier and more effective to give them a kick or smack and let the realization settle over them.

LOL

good stuff