>always trained within the 4-10 rep range
>started doing sets of 20, 15 and 12
holy shit, feels crazy, didnt know muscles could hurt this much
well youre a moron
>>34891357
Why are so many posters on /fit/ incapable of doing more than one thing in their routine? It's all ONE rep range, either this or that muscle group, either this or that exercise etc.
It sounds like a lot of you don't really know much about training and just roll with fitness memes you read in some men's health article
congrats on your endurance training
>always in the 3-5 rep range
>have pretty strong strength base
>lets switch it up
>drop weight low
>do 8 reps
>do a 4x8 session
>wiped out more than a 3x5 session at heavier weight
you just heemed your gains
>>34891386
Ok wise guy, tell me... are your muscles confused?
>>34891386
it doesn't help that there's a different group of people advocating for their own method, claiming it's the best
>>34891357
Congrats on your very first training, whatever you did before was akin to slouching in the couch
Idiot.
No pain no gain
>>34891454
No, the program I'm on is very concise, but exhaustive, featuring multiple rep ranges, exercise variations and promotes a balanced physique.
>>34891455
It still seems to me like a lot of people are stuck in this mentality coming from steroid users like Jim Wendler etc. wherein low rep ranges and linear progression are used long past the point where it's feasible for a natural athlete.
I did it for back and biceps and i was sore for 4 days
was spooky
>>34891494
>finally train right
>"spooky gain pains, better stop doing this"
Is this a meme or is /fit/ retarded/pussy?
>>34891454
my almonds are activated
>>34891523
kai greene i didnt know you browsed fit
>>34891404
How is this surprising? 4x8=32 reps. 3x5=15 reps. You're more than doubling your reps per exercise how does it come as a surprise that it's harder?
>>34891540
retards have trouble grasping the concept of more total volume = more total results
>>34891555
kettlebell
>>34891555
none of these silly bitches even use promo code rogan to get a discount of kettlebells
did i mention how useless isolation exercises are? the only isolation you should do is in a tank, and on my dmt+alpha brain stack.
>>34891573
>tfw i forgot to mention the kettlebells are primal kettlebells from onnit
i dun fucked up.
>>34891552
that table proves what you just said wrong
that table says regardless of rep range they all made the same muscle gains
>>34891587
the studies are controlled for volume.
the only three controlled by number of sets don't compare the usual "strength" range to "hypertrophy" range
>>34891587
>literally can't read a chart
>>34891587
>that table says regardless of rep range they all made the same muscle gains
because the factor they controlled for was:
total volume.
when you do the same total volume, rep ranges don't matter.
lower rep ranges let you do more total volume.
more total volume = more total hypertrophy.
please learn how to read, how to science, and what "control" means.
if you don't believe me, read the strengtheory article linked in the image.
it should explain it well enough for your dumbass to understand
nobody is saying higher rep ranges build more muscle. they do not.
they also do not build LESS muscle.
so if you are able to do MORE total volume, doing something that builds as much muscle, you build MORE TOTAL MUSCLE
you understand?
or should i break it down even further?
>>34891618
so 1 thousands reps with a 1kg dumbell gives you the same gains as 100 reps with a 10kg dumbell?
>>34891633
I gues I should do 3x50 then way more volume right???
>>34891633
break it down further, give me some examples
>>34891652
i would do more sets of less reps
10 x 25 is MUUUCH more volume, and easier to do with a heavier weight. meaning more total work is done.
meaning you see more total results.
you'd probably need like 2 extra rest days for your muscles to recuperate if you did that, unless you are on roids
>>34891642
>still unable to read a fucking chart
3-5 vs 8-12 at the SAME VOLUME = same hypertrophy, more strength for 3-5
3-5 or 8-12 vs 25-35 at the SAME VOLUME = no hypertrophy or strength for 25-35, endurance for 25-35
>>34891642
no, check the table.
at a certain point when the intensity is low enough, you stop building muscular strength and inducing hypertrophy, and start developing muscular endurance instead.
also that would take like 9 hours to do something you could do in like 10 minutes.
so its just plain chronologically inefficient.
>>34891686
so whats your point
>>34891692
>hurr if i can't take your reasoning to a-logical extremes, you didn't have a point to begin with.
1. more total volume is better for hypertrophy
>hurr you say i should drop intensity and just do 100,000,000 reps? that is dumb
no shit, but more volume is better for hypertrophy...
if you are only interested in developing muscular strength, stick to a low rep range.
other than that, you should be doing more volume
>>34891633
If there was "no difference" between high and low rep ranges doesn't that imply that high rep ranges aren't any better for hypertrophy, but are inferior for strength gains?
It doesn't seem that any of the studies adjusted for number of sets. Why do 5x12 instead of 5x5?
>>34891710
no need to get butt flustered, im just asking a question
so you're saying if you had to choose one rep range to train it ~10 would be it, right?
>>34891523
Fucking got me.
>>34891712
>If there was "no difference" between high and low rep ranges doesn't that imply that high rep ranges aren't any better for hypertrophy, but are inferior for strength gains?
if you couldn't do more total volume at higher rep ranges, yes.
but you can easily do more than double the total volume at higher rep ranges.
if the volume = same
the hypertrophy = same
more total volume = more total hypertrophy.
please fucking learn how to read a goddamn chart.
>>34891718
>so you're saying if you had to choose one rep range to train it ~10 would be it, right?
no.
i am saying it would be whatever lets you get the most amount of volume in, with the highest level of intensity.
depends on the person.
some people might do better with 10 x 10
some 5 x 20
it all fucking depends.
basically add in as much volume as you can without sacrificing a significant amount of intensity.
but since simple minds desire a simple answer...
call it 15.
>>34891712
>It doesn't seem that any of the studies adjusted for number of sets. Why do 5x12 instead of 5x5?
please read the image.
the bottom fucking study.
factors controlled for: number of sets.
>>34891752
You started out nicely with the previous posts and then you just fucked it all up.
Yes, volume matters but rep range also does. If you're at a weight where you can pump out 20, you're not going to gain strength or hypertrophy, you're training for endurance. It's even in your fucking chart.
Anywhere between 3 and 12 would be the safespot with high enough volume. Go for 3-5 if you absolutely want strength gains though.
>>34891712
>why do 5x12 instead of 5x5?
because 5x12 is more total volume, you plebeian.
5 x 5 = 25
5 x 12 = 60
if the weight is only 10-15lb lighter, you are doing a LOOOOT more work at a higher rep range.
>>34891555
He's rocked... He's rocked
>>34891768
>volume matters but rep range also does. If you're at a weight where you can pump out 20, you're not going to gain strength or hypertrophy, you're training for endurance. It's even in your fucking chart.
right, i made that very fucking explicit>>34891691
>no, check the table.
>at a certain point when the intensity is low enough, you stop building muscular strength and inducing hypertrophy, and start developing muscular endurance instead.
and this guy did too
>>34891686
>3-5 or 8-12 vs 25-35 at the SAME VOLUME = no hypertrophy or strength for 25-35, endurance for 25-35
i made it very obvious you cannot sacrifice intensity for volume'
rep range DOES NOT MATTER
sufficient amount of intensity does.
>>34891357
Welcome to muscle confusion bitch
>>34891768
>thinking there is any reason not to do 12-20
you don't start getting into endurance territory until the weight is light enough for you to do more than 20 reps with it
23-35 is where the data showed hypertrophy start to diminish.
stay on the lower side of 20 and you're fine.
>>34891555
Smoking a mixture of DMT and creatine before a kettlebell set really let you understand just how much humans are like bacteria on an old sandwhich.
BIG RIGHT HAND! RONDA ROUSY IS PHENOMENAL! WOW! WOW! WOW!
OUR REFEREE TONIGHT :BIG JOHN McCARTHY
>>34891800
>knows even less about dmt than joe rogan
wow... how is that even possible?
>>34891555
hi gus
>>34891778
Why don't people train 1x100 if rep range doesn't matter?
>>34891768
So:
5x5 = 25 => Strength development
1x25 = 25 => Endurance development
Is this correct? So instead of adding weight, I could just add more sets instead and have roughly the same effect?
>>34891813
because the intensity would be too low to induce hypertrophy or build strength.
you need a high enough intensity to where people struggle to lift it as much as 20 times.
other than that the intensity is too low, so volume won't matter (Excepting the development of muscular endurance)
>>34891816
yes but 25 is a low on the intensity to induce hypertrophy
4x12-15 would be better than 1x25
and would be more total volume anyways.
Find out how many reps ronald coldman did and copy him
>>34891797
You're throwing away strength gains completely for the same hypertrophy and a much longer workout. Great plan.
Stick to 8-12 unless you're going for strength+hypertrophy, in which case you should go for 3-5 at a high volume (that means no 3x3-5).
>>34891846
>same hypertrophy
no, because i do more than twice the volume you do, so i get roughly twice the hypertrophy.
also i still do strength training.
i do 5x5 when i want to develop strength, 4x8 if i want the best of both worlds, and 5x18 if i want pure hypertrophy.
>>34891844
roids xF
>>34891866
>5x18
yeah sorry m8 that's endurance too.
endurance doesn't only apply to rep ranges, if you can do a total of 90 reps, you're definitely not lifting your 70-80% RM
>>34891866
>also i still do strength training.
i just want to re-iterate.
never did i say you should do less strength training.
i never said or implied that.
i was merely showing the relevant data as far as hypertrophy vs strength training is concerned.
i highly encourage everyone to train at low volume high intensity to develop strength
>go to gym
>do two heavy sets (5 or less reps)
>do three sets of 12-20 reps
= best of both worlds
>>34891866
The studies controlled for reps. With the same number of sets, a higher rep range didn't provide hypertrophy benefits.
Why the fuck would you think doing more "volume" was beneficial?
>>34891880
i don't think you rest long enough between sets, my man.
if the intensity is sufficiently high, it doesn't matter how high the numbers are.
just rest moar until you make it.
fat fucks can do 100 pull ups a day (broken into 50 sets of 2) challenges, and you think you can't do a serious high volume workout without sacrificing intensity?
>>34891642
>>34891652
>>34891661
>>34891587
>>34891692
Wow the average person really is a fucking retard.
>>34891898
>doesn't look at the 25-35 reps
the intensity was lower than most think possible to build muscle (really that is a misinterpretation of data - it is where hypertrophic results start to drastically diminish)
...and it still built as much muscle as a high intensity work out.
lower intensity, but more volume, and it was still equivalent hypertrophy.
now imagine if the intensity wasn't abysmally low...
>>34891911
>that table says regardless of rep range they all made the same muscle gains
but that is literally what the table says
they all built the same amount of muscle, regardless of rep range
>>34891939
>when controlling for volume
fuck it, you are too dumb for me to explain this too
please read
http://www.strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/
>>34891898
What the fuck are you even saying?
>With the same number of sets, a higher rep range didn't provide hypertrophy benefits.
Only 3 studies controlled for number of sets, two had the same number of reps.
The only one with same number of sets, different number of reps was the last one and it showed 8-12 had more hypertrophy than 25-35 because 25-35 is endurance training range.
let's recap
1. when controlling for total volume, higher rep ranges induce the same hypertrophy, at the same volume.
2.at a certain point, lack of intensity leads to diminished hypertrophy (when controlling for total volume)
3. when controlling for # of sets, that same lack of intensiy believed not to be hypertrophic, had induced as much hypertrophy as high intensity workouts.
4. apparently none of this means anything, disregard this and pretend you are doing enough volume for maximal hypertrophy.
>>34891965
>The only one with same number of sets, different number of reps was the last one and it showed 8-12 had more hypertrophy than 25-35 because 25-35 is endurance training range.
not even that.
same hypertrophy, even though the 25-35 was in the "endurance" range.
volume made up for the lack of intensity.
now just think what happens when you have the volume WITHOUT the lack of intensity...
>>34891807
Nigger have you ever even smoked DMT.
Because I have.
>>34892022
no, because i don't pyrolize dmt, because i like to breakthrough on ~20mg
people who smoke it often need more than ~50mg to breakthrough, and that is just a huuuge waste of a sacred molecule.
i prefer to vaporize it.
if i smoalk anything, it is changa... but even smoalking changa has a tendency to vape dmt before pyrolysis occurs.
no but seriously, i have been extracting and consuming dmt since before my dmt-nexus account, which dates back to 2010
>>34891954
Even the author of the article you posted thinks that more sets is more important then total volume.
>Doing more sets or volume (it’s still a little unclear which better predicts gains, although I lean toward more sets) gives you more results.
>>34892084
>Doing more sets or volume (it’s still a little unclear which better predicts gains, although I lean toward more sets) gives you more results.
to be clear, i am very close to agreeing with him, and would have little to no problem conceding number of sets is more important than total volume.
>>34892106
in fact, i am going to just go ahead and change that little problem to "no problem" and preemptively concede that he is right
why?
because there is data or evidence on his side?
no.. he freely admits this is his own whim.. but fuck it, lets pretend that is the infallible truth... i certainly have no problem with it.
personally i think doing more sets is the same as adding more volume, but what the fuck do i know? (very little, to be sure)
>>34891454
lol
I can usually do 10 pull ups first set, then 6 and then 4. Is this fine like this or should I aim towards the same reps each set (e.g. 6)?
>>34891902
shameless attention grab, because more people should read this, if they want to incorporate heavy volume training into their regimen
>>34892267
>I can usually do 10 pull ups first set, then 6 and then 4. Is this fine like this or should I aim towards the same reps each set (e.g. 6)?
you aren't resting long enough between sets, for one.
but you will always be strongest on your first set, and slightly more fatigued with each next one.
plus the first set you should be staying a rep or two away from failure. the next couple sets you might flirt with going to failure, then your last set you are going to go to failure, and (if you have a spotter) keep going.
after that you can do a dropset if you want, but why would you want?
>>34891824
What do you mean by intensity and volume?
Intensity is how heavy the weight is? Volume is how big the weight is? No? What?
I need something quantifiable
>>34891587
Do you not know how to read a fucking chart
>>34892267
so in your scenario, to be more precise...
try aiming for 3x8
if 8 is 2 away from failure on your first set, and you rest for a good 3 minutes....
you should be able to repeat that effort on the second set.
third set would be to failure.
>>34892344
Intensity is weight.
Volume is WeightxRepsxSets
>>34892344
intensity = how hard the workout is
volume = how much exercise you are doing
if the weight is low, the intensity is low, because its not hard at all.
there is zero intensity in doing an overhead press (you meme le press? xD) with just your hands
so at that point volume doesn't matter, because infinity times zero is still zero.
>>34892353
if you finish reading the thread, its well established he does not.
>>34892340
>>34892367
Thanks guys. So I should only go to failure on the last set? Then I need to change a few exercises kek
Why is this so though?
>>34892384
Thanks man.
So, intensity is weight, and volume is sets of reps?
>>34892423
going to failure zaps all the atp out of the muscle and fatigues it super fast.
at least that was the broscience i was taught.
>>34892448
>volume is sets of reps?
sets AND reps, AND weight.
the total amount of "working out" done, is your total volume
