>Been doing slow, controlled weightlifting for a while now
>Made SOME gains
>Switched to more reps, less rest time type of workouts and also more eccentric workouts (Row Machine, Rope machine for lats, battle ropes, kettlebell swings, explosive pushups etc.)
>Muscle seems fuller and swoler
What the fuck? I never made such gainz when I was doing SL 5x5...
Pic related; Jon Bones from MMA to powerlifting
steroids
drugs and being black
Gear and genetics. They all use.
>>34970757
>>34970778
>>34970803
But I didnt use any, and Im not black
>>34970747
you mean you got better than you were before by working out?
what a scoop
jhny bnz jnez
>>34970747
>What the fuck? I never made such gainz when I was doing SL 5x5...
because more volume = more hypertrophy.
>>34971341
>because more volume = more hypertrophy.
>posts a pic that says otherwise
>>34971357
kek
>>34971357
>doesn't know how to read a chart
when you control for volume, hypertrophy is the same, regardless of rep range or intensity.
because all that matters is volume.
if you are still too stupid to understand the chart after reading my post, read this article
http://www.strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/
>>34971357
>>34971370
>posts on 4chan
>is illiterate
go away samefag.
>>34971383
>wide array of rep ranges examined
>hypertrophy effect = no difference between groups down the column
>"if you're too stupid to understand the chart"
>>34971414
"wide array of rep ranges" controlled for volume you literal retard
>>34971533
but the longer sets have obviously more volume
>>34971546
....
i don't..even...
how...
...
just stop posting, lmao
>>34971533
so volume is consistent and yet you state "because more volume = more hypertrophy" when the chart states there was no effect?
>>34971533
So how does this chart tell us hypertrophy is gained through higher reps?
>>34971546
you can control for volume, fucktard
setsxrepsxweight
if you have lower weight and reps, you increase the total sets, until the total volume is the same.
if you have higher reps and weights, you lower the amount of sets.
are you so dense you literally could not conceive how one might control for volume?
>>34971546
...what?
when they test for 3-5 vs 13-15 for example, they'll do 5x5 vs 2x13 for the safe number of total reps, i.e. SAME VOLUME
>>34971584
>when the chart states there was no effect
??? they're at the same fucking volume, the studies are controlled for volumes
holy fuck people
If this is somehow still rocket science, read the fucking article
>>34971414
>people this stupid are the ones giving you advice on /fit/
>>34971584
when controlling for volume, the hypertrophy is the same.
literally the same thing i said in the first post
>>34971383
>when you control for volume, hypertrophy is the same, regardless of rep range or intensity.
>because all that matters is volume.
then i gave you an instruction
>if you are still too stupid to understand the chart after reading my post, read this article
http://www.strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/
since you clearly demonstrated you are still too dumb to understand the post, please read the article.
>>34971592
it doesn't
it says it is gained through more volume.
most people up their volume when they switch to higher rep work.
my point in posting that is that even powerlifting can build mass hypertrophy, as long as the volume is high.
>>34971622
thank you, based anon. for being the only other literate person in this thread.
>>34971622
>SAME VOLUME
then that shit is completely useless
that's obvious you can lift more and get more gains if you rest more which is exactly what more set less reps is
>>34971357
>>34971414
>>34971546
>people this stupid actually exist, and have the right to vote
>>34971626
Ahh got ya, purely just proving high reps alone do nothing, but they can make it easier to increase volume
>>34971651
>implying anyone was saying you shouldn't do more sets at low reps
this is literally WHY i posted the chart.
to prove you can get massive amounts of hypertrophy, even with powerlifter levels of intensity, because all that matters is volume, not rep range.
jesus fuck.
>>34971658
being this mad from matters as small as this thread's means you're as stupid
you just have better reading comprehension
>>34971669
>high reps alone do nothing, but they can make it easier to increase volume
yes.
thank you.
jesus christ, that was way too difficult to communicate a very simple concept.
>>34971651
>that's obvious you can lift more and get more gains if you rest more which is exactly what more set less reps is
5x5 is 25 reps.
A typical "bodybuilding range" is 8-12. That means at 3x8 you're already past at the volume of a 5x5 routine, which is already high past the beginner phase (it's usually 3x5 for strength based routines).
Your sentence makes no sense. It is significantly easier to get volume from reps/set than by raising the total number of sets.
>>34971670
>implying anyone was saying you shouldn't do more sets at low reps
that's what I was asking
because intensity is what makes you decide the number of reps
no one can do 10 sets of 1rm or its not their 1rm
you posted that chart offtopic mistaking everyone
>>34971670
your major point was that lifting more weight and/or increasing repetitions will cause greater hypertrophy.
what kind of common sense information is that? who felt the need to do a study on this and pass it off as some big revelation?
>>34971711
>that's what I was asking
no, you were asking why you didn't get many gains with 5x5
because the volume is so low, is the answer.
chart's as precisely on-topic as anything could possibly be.
The balls on this fucking guy for posting such retarded shit
Un fucking real
>>34971701
what I meant is more sets means mor rest compared to more reps/set in a same total rep matter
doing 5x5 allows you to lift at higher intensity compared to 3x8
which is so obvious you don't need a study
btw 3x8 has less volume than 5x5
>>34971723
>your major point was that lifting more weight and/or increasing repetitions will cause greater hypertrophy.
not at all
you can lift more weight at the same volume, and make no gains.
you can increase the rep by decreasing the weight, end up at the same volume, and make no gains.
my major point is that hypertrophy is a function of training volume.
>>34971731
I'm not op
>>34971723
>what kind of common sense information is that? who felt the need to do a study on this and pass it off as some big revelation?
that's my point
>>34971743
you do know weights are included in volume, right?
its setsxrepsxweight, not just setsxreps.
>>34971767
yeah, so?
if you can lift 5x5 and 3x8 the same weight you have a real problem in your training
>>34971761
>that's my point
you would be surprised how much of /fit/ disagrees with the concept of volume = hypertrophy.
also, if it really WAS common sense, then OP wouldn't have to ask why he is getting more hypertrophy with less intensity, because we would all know it was due to a overall increase in volume.
but it isn't common knowledge, hence the existence of this thread.
>>34971792
common sense isn't common knowldge sadly
>>34971626
>Main Takeaways
>Rep range does not matter for hypertrophy (at least up to 30 reps/set for trained lifters and 100 reps/set for untrained old people), so long as the effort per set is equal.
>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.
>it’s still a little unclear which better predicts gains
>>34970778
kek of the day award. Although empirical data is lacking, black people seem to have a much harder time building, judging from virtually every single raw strength sport being completely dominated by whites.
>>34971853
>Doing more sets or volume (it’s still a little unclear which better predicts gains
not quite, it can be distilled as thus:
1) Volume = sets x reps x weight
2) Volume must be progressively overloaded to make hypertrophy gains (low reps/high reps, it doesn't matter)
3) Low reps regimes result in more favourable strength gains
>>34972381
You're going up against the article linked.
>>34971341
So based on this chart, the latest studies suggest that doing 25-35 reps will get me as swole as doing 8-12 reps?
Then fuck lifting heavy ass weights! I just want to get swole! I dont want to get injured!
>>34970747
Will this motherfucker even be able to cut to 205 anymore? Dude might just come back at heavyweight
>>34974426
He better hit 205. I want to see Cormier get bodied again
>>34970747
Bones definitely roids.
Also stronglifts is about strength
hence the name STRONG Lifts not fucking Swole Lifts
>>34972217
>lifting for strength
>not lifting for mass and aesthetics
You wat m8
