- This topic has 10 voices and 30 replies.
-
Posts
-
8-12 is the golden standard, but in a new (10-week) study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, 25-30 will also build JUST as much muscle as 8-12, but 8-12 will build more strength.Cory
Do you have a link for that?
I'm sure I could find one. Pulled it out of both the new MuscleMag and the new Flex (or maybe it was Muscle & Fitness, one of those Weider pubs).Cory
The reason I ask is I would like to see which muscle/exercise was being examined.It just says legs and it doesn't mention which exercise was used. Also it never said in the abstract if the subjects used were previously resistance trained, so it simply could have been newbie gains.
8-12 is the golden standard, but in a new (10-week) study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, 25-30 will also build JUST as much muscle as 8-12, but 8-12 will build more strength.Cory
Do you have a link for that?
I'm sure I could find one. Pulled it out of both the new MuscleMag and the new Flex (or maybe it was Muscle & Fitness, one of those Weider pubs).Cory
The reason I ask is I would like to see which muscle/exercise was being examined.
Just posted a link (on previous page). Here it is again: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430105358.htm...however, it doesn't say what exercises were used, nor which muscle was specifically tested. Maybe another article about that study will.Cory
Haha an editing shitstorm.
LOL, yeah... and what an embarrasing choice for a photograph.That's just one of many articles on that study that Google brings up. I just wish I could find the ACTUAL study, which might be more detailed.Cory
Haha an editing shitstorm.
LOL, yeah... and what an embarrasing choice for a photograph.That's just one of many articles on that study that Google brings up. I just wish I could find the ACTUAL study, which might be more detailed.Cory
I looked at it, they have a link at the bottom of the article you posted. Here it is: http://jap.physiology.org/content/113/1/71As I said before, doesn't mention which muscle/exercise or if the study subjects were previously resistance trained.
Haha an editing shitstorm.
LOL, yeah... and what an embarrasing choice for a photograph.That's just one of many articles on that study that Google brings up. I just wish I could find the ACTUAL study, which might be more detailed.Cory
I looked at it, they have a link at the bottom of the article you posted. Here it is: http://jap.physiology.org/content/113/1/71As I said before, doesn't mention which muscle/exercise or if the study subjects were previously resistance trained.
Shit, I completely overlooked that link. Saw the reference, but overlooked the link.Cory
…either way, I am incorporating this study currently (started this Monday). Hitting ea. muscle group with primary compound exercises in the 8-10 range, and then finishing that group w/ an isolation exercise in the 25-30 rep range. 3 sets of ea. exercise. The routine I crafted is in my CNS log, on page 103.The finishing pump is phenonenal @ 25-30 reps!Cory
...either way, I am incorporating this study currently (started this Monday). Hitting ea. muscle group with primary compound exercises in the 8-10 range, and then finishing that group w/ an isolation exercise in the 25-30 rep range. 3 sets of ea. exercise. The routine I crafted is in my CNS log, on page 103.The finishing pump is phenonenal @ 25-30 reps!Cory
LOL I guess I can be a dick now and say I was right! (; I think higher reps are phenominal for certain exercises/muscles. Depending on who you believe, stretching the fascia out with insane pumps and producing a lot of intramuscular pressure is another mechanism for growth.
...either way, I am incorporating this study currently (started this Monday). Hitting ea. muscle group with primary compound exercises in the 8-10 range, and then finishing that group w/ an isolation exercise in the 25-30 rep range. 3 sets of ea. exercise. The routine I crafted is in my CNS log, on page 103.The finishing pump is phenonenal @ 25-30 reps!Cory
LOL I guess I can be a dick now and say I was right! (; I think higher reps are phenominal for certain exercises/muscles. Depending on who you believe, stretching the fascia out with insane pumps and producing a lot of intramuscular pressure is another mechanism for growth.
Literally, unilateral cable curls never hurt so good (for instance). LOL!I was firing away until rep 20-ish, and then the final 5+ reps that I could manage were pure torture... and I gained like an extra temporary inch+ on both arms from pure pump!Good times. All of that nutrient rich blood being pumped into my already beaten muscles is pure win.Cory
...either way, I am incorporating this study currently (started this Monday). Hitting ea. muscle group with primary compound exercises in the 8-10 range, and then finishing that group w/ an isolation exercise in the 25-30 rep range. 3 sets of ea. exercise. The routine I crafted is in my CNS log, on page 103.The finishing pump is phenonenal @ 25-30 reps!Cory
LOL I guess I can be a dick now and say I was right! (; I think higher reps are phenominal for certain exercises/muscles. Depending on who you believe, stretching the fascia out with insane pumps and producing a lot of intramuscular pressure is another mechanism for growth.
I said this is dependent on the muscle (which the study never specified). All the said in the abstract was "leg exercise". Most likely it is probably leg extension, but for all we know it could have been a calf raise. Also if you get someone who never touched a weigh before ANYTHING is gonna make them grow. something the abstract never specifies. Until someone forks over the dough for the full version of the study, it don't mean shit in my book 😉
...either way, I am incorporating this study currently (started this Monday). Hitting ea. muscle group with primary compound exercises in the 8-10 range, and then finishing that group w/ an isolation exercise in the 25-30 rep range. 3 sets of ea. exercise. The routine I crafted is in my CNS log, on page 103.The finishing pump is phenonenal @ 25-30 reps!Cory
LOL I guess I can be a dick now and say I was right! (; I think higher reps are phenominal for certain exercises/muscles. Depending on who you believe, stretching the fascia out with insane pumps and producing a lot of intramuscular pressure is another mechanism for growth.
I said this is dependent on the muscle (which the study never specified). All the said in the abstract was "leg exercise". Most likely it is probably leg extension, but for all we know it could have been a calf raise. Also if you get someone who never touched a weigh before ANYTHING is gonna make them grow. something the abstract never specifies. Until someone forks over the dough for the full version of the study, it don't mean shit in my book 😉
I still dont think its muscle specific. Muscle fibers are muscle fibers. If you can stimulate them appropriately AND supply the necessary nutrition pretty much any rep range can produce growth. Theres the old sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar debate, but at the end of the day size is size and you dont just get one or the other. And even if you are only targetting type IIx fibers with heavy explosive work in a muscle that has a smaller percentage of them youll still get gains. Ive never understood the debate of why people think if one muscle is "predominantly" type I vs type IIx that they should train that muscle for higher reps. Yeah so what if the muscle is 60% slow twitch/type I That still means a massive 40% is type IIx and growable. And if you really want max size gains you can still train the other 40% with higher reps as well! Most bodybuilders that have been tested tend to have more type I fibers anyhow. Pick a weight/rep range where you can feel the muscle doing the lionshare of the work and then get stronger! Everything else is mental masturbation.
...either way, I am incorporating this study currently (started this Monday). Hitting ea. muscle group with primary compound exercises in the 8-10 range, and then finishing that group w/ an isolation exercise in the 25-30 rep range. 3 sets of ea. exercise. The routine I crafted is in my CNS log, on page 103.The finishing pump is phenonenal @ 25-30 reps!Cory
LOL I guess I can be a dick now and say I was right! (; I think higher reps are phenominal for certain exercises/muscles. Depending on who you believe, stretching the fascia out with insane pumps and producing a lot of intramuscular pressure is another mechanism for growth.
+1 on all of this1. heavy compound movment (531, 365, juggernaut, 5x5 etc)2. heavy accessory isolation exercises for reps3. fascia s-t-r-e-t-c-h pumped muscles, aka dogcrapp= win
Well I just simply do what works for myself. I tried experimenting with several rep ranges for the exercises I do and I know what gives me the best results. I don't care about working muscle fibers, all I care about is growth and strength. Different types of muscle fibers don't have the same potential for hypertrophy as each other anyways. If that were the case marathon runners would have legs like Jay Cutler.
Well I just simply do what works for myself. I tried experimenting with several rep ranges for the exercises I do and I know what gives me the best results. I don't care about working muscle fibers, all I care about is growth and strength. Different types of muscle fibers don't have the same potential for hypertrophy as each other anyways. If that were the case marathon runners would have legs like Jay Cutler.
Mostly the same for me. I find 10 reps is my sweet spot for growth on almost all bodyparts (except my chest... which better responds to 8 reps). I am more interested in hypertrophy, though. Strength merely comes along the for the ride, but I have no interest in becoming a powerlifter (so no focus on pure strength).I just completed a week using the 25-30 rep range as a finisher (3 sets of an isolation exercise in this range). It REALLY makes the muscle swell, feel tight and extremely pumped. I don't know if it will cause growth, but I imagine it would... nutrient-rich blood being POURED directly into the pre-damaged muscle fibers. My diet, supplementation and rest are all spot on for my body (which I know from years of this).Growth or not, high-rep finishers are fuckin' killer! My delts are SCREAMING after this morning. I'm getting a great workout utilizing this, and that's what matters to me.Cory
I have a question regarding this topic and would appreciate it if anybody could chime in.Which type of muscular development(myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic) does CBL enhance more? In other words is it better for increasing muscle density or muscle mass? I mean we all know GLUT4 is stimulated by heavy resistance training, but theoretically where would all the incoming carbs from an epic backload go if you haven't drained glycogen stores with high volume? It seems like one type of training stimulates GLUT4 but doesn't use up much glycogen while the other empties out your glycogen but doesn't do much for GLUT4?What is the best type of workout to set the stage for CBL to achieve that ripped, rock-hard physique? Personally I'm more after definition than I am mass. Size would be a welcome bonus but it's not my main priority. The football running back kind of look would be perfect.Again thanks for any input.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.