>doing sets of 5 or heavier
>fucking up your joints
>looking like a sperg
>whilst the curlbros doing 15 reps are making more gains than you
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012033
15 fucking people brah
>>36683982
>results from one exercise
Doesnt mean anything over time though
low weight
high rep
alday
erday
>>36684073
This isn't the only study, 'brah'
The thing that grows muscle is pushing it hard in the gym. It doesn't care about your rep range/exercise used
>wanting big muscles while being weak
Am I seriously the only one who would prefer being ridiculously strong while being otter?
>funny because pic related> otter mode bro spliter
>also 2015+1 not doing heavy low rep compounds and ligh high rep assistance
>>36684234
What the fuck
I agree with the second part though, do both
>>36683982
and there are dozens of other articles that show that muscle growth is the same for a 3-5rep protocol compared to a 8-12rep protocol, but both groups induced more hypertrophy than a 15+rep group. strength gains were best in the 3-5rep group
So more volume was better in almost all regards? Wow what a surprise.
Also, why not do MRI or ultrasound of the quads to measure volume increases?
Also also, why didn't they measure strength change?
Also also also, why didnt these fuckers give a time table? They only talked about hours pre/post exercise.
>>36683982
I couple muscle tension with metabolic stress desu.
>>36683982
I stopped reading when they used the leg extension as the fucking exercise in this. The Leg extension would clearly fuck up you joints if you went really heavy on it. It's designed for le pump not strength.
>>36684316
There are several conflicting studies on all this. It seems to be the consensus that 3-5 is best for strength though. I've definitely seen serious hypertrophy gains switching to 8-12 reps though, but that might have to do with increasing volume.
I usually do low reps on compund excercises like deadlift, squat and over head press. Should I switch to a higher rep range on these lifts?
There is no point in getting big on those lifts, its better to focus on strength on these lifts because they won't really make much a difference aesthetics wise.
>>36684207
>implying bodybuilders arent stronger than 98% of the population
>calling them 'weak' cause they arent stronger than 99% of the population like powerlifters
Fuck youre stupid. Anyone whos aesthetic has 'fake' muscle right?
Basically building synthol unless you do under 5 reps brah!
Why not do a periodized routine where you do high volume at the beginning and then start increasing the intensity while lowering the volume to translate those hypertrophy gains into strength gains? Then you get strength and size at the same time, plus once you peak at the end you can take a deload week to keep fresh and start all over again for more gainz.
You don't have to limit yourself to one kind of training.
>>36684851
https://www.t-nation.com/training/how-to-use-linear-periodization
written by ye mighty Greg Nuckols
>>36684316
Are strength gains worth all the damage and effort?
>>36684963
>damage
What are you referring to?
>effort
It's not that much effort if you're not a pussy and you don't approach training as optional
>>36684443
It's a shitty study and there are studies to the contrary. There was a Norwegian study that showed 8x3 and 5x5 made close enough size gains to be comparable, while 8x3 had significantly more strength gains, and the 3x10 group didn't get results size our strength wise
>>36684554
>they won't make much of a difference aesthetics wise
I disagree entirely, the compounds are gonna be your bread and butter. Nothing builds your legs like bench, nothing builds your back like deadlifts
As for increasing the reps, not per set, no. Maybe add in more sets or, better yet, find a program that makes sense to you and just let them do the thinking.
>>36684827
Nobody called bodybuilders weak because some of them aren't. He's just saying he'd rather be strong than big.
>implying most of us aren't training to be the biggest, strongest guy in the gym anyway
>>36684462
>I meme meme with meme
>>36684148
Yeah, why even make gains?
>>36685076
Inevitable wear and tear to joints caused over time + high probability of snapping your shit up
>>36685740
Easier on the joints than running and virtually every sport
More fun than video games
At a certain point it's worth it. I know old plers that have no regrets
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xhVCEoe.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>36683982
This natty motherfucker already told us that one million times before these gay ass studies.
Only internet sperglords fall for the 5 rep meme.
>>36685827
Running and other sports have a ton of other benefits, while lifting heavy makes you lift heavy.
>>36686085
>lifting heavy makes you heavy
>lifting puts calories into your body
Dude seriously?
>>36686167
>i can't read
Sports/exercise/nutritional science is a joke full of those plebs who did PE at GCSE/ALevel. I don't take any of their studies seriously
>>36686085
depends, i mean lifting heavy also allows you to jump far, sprint faster etc..... all pretty good desu
>>36686179
Ahh well that's embarrassing
I thought you said lifting heavy makes you heavy
HYPERTROPHY IS MORE FOCUSED ON BUILDING MUSCLES AND STRENGTH BASED TRAINING IS FOCUSED ON STRENGTH
HOLY SHIT THIS IS SOME NEW INFORMATION
BREAKING FUCKING NEWS EVERYONE
THE GAME HAS CHANGED
EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVED IN WAS WRONG
>>36683982
But Gnucks made a point that it doesn't even really matter what weight or reps you do, if you ultimately put in the same overall work. higher reps = better at high rep sets. lower reps = better at lower rep sets.
Ya dingus
>>36683982
The main argument is that if you're stronk you can start doing 10-15 reps with a lot heavier weight than people who aren't as strong, but still light relative to your max
>>36684207
A natural lifter can not get big muscles without becoming stronger.
The rep range really doesn't fucking matter.
The relative weight and frequency is the only thing that matters.
>>36686273
There is very strong evidence to argue that size and strength aren't as mutually exclusive as were led to believe
>>36685740
Lowest risk of injury to date
and go take a intro to bio class to learn that hypertrophy results in thicker ligaments and tendons as well as bone deposition
if you dont know what that means, kill yourself
>being strong and big > being big
>implying all gains is to get big
>what do you do once youve reached a plateau with your low load resistance? Protip: Up the resistance (weight)
>implying strength (high load low rep) and then hypertrophy (low load, high rep) will get nowhere
>implying there arent studies showing long term hypertrophy between the two are the same, but then the strength group has more muscle density and the fact that they can lift more than you bitch bois
>strength
more bone deposition
more muscle density
higher BMR
healthier joints
higher calories burned
higher bmr
higher rate of fatoxidation after workout
higher sprint times
higher rate of recovery long term
higher long jump/vertical jump
higher insulin resistance
bigger balls from not being a PUSSY
>hypertrophy
more glycogen storage
more muscle volume and crossectional area
significantly lesser benefits shared with above
>>36684165
This this this
>>36686444
You can get size from strength, but just becuase you have muscle volume (glycogen stores, contractile units...) does not mean you have
>nervous system activation
>explosive contraction
>force production = to strength training
>>36684165
Woah, if you stress your muscles to use the glycogen energy system it will store glycogen (hypertrophy) and if you train for strength you will get a nervous system allowing you to produce more force and more creatine phosphate storage?
(protip: glycogen stores require water to be stores, creatine phosphate just needs, well a phosphate. Since the water molecules are larger...the result is higher muscle volume)
nothing more than sugar water in your muscles versus someone who has denser muscles, more contractile units and a nervous system that allows him to contract it quicker and more efficiently than the sugar water fuccboi group
>>36686493
>List all this with 0 source.
>>36684316
does 3-5 rep mean that they took weight that they only could do 3 to 5 times?
so for hypertrophy i should take a weight that i can manage for 8-12 reps? and if yes, how many sets?
i hope someone understands what i mean, english is my native language :)
>>36687284
It's the same, follow any proven program to get stronger
>>36684316
So this is why bodybuilders and powerlifters look the same.
>>36687399
>what is body fat
>>36687347
Proven program?
Here is the basics of any and all strength and mass building.
Lift something heavy without hurting yourself
Stop when you are tired
Lift something heavy again
Do this till you can't lift it anymore
Eat well
Rest
That's the program.
That's all you need to fucking do to get stronger and bigger.
Anyone who tells you otherwise has a program/narrative to sell.
>>36687415
What are drugs, diet, and bodytypes.
>>36687446
This, although sets of less than 5 seems weird
>>36686201
This. Much like nutritionists, they just aren't very intelligent and have no clue what they are doing.
>>36687446
>Lift something heavy without hurting yourself
>Stop when you are tired
>Lift something heavy again
>Do this till you can't lift it anymore
>Eat well
>Rest
persistence is key
>>36683982
This is such a stupid thread you made. You obviously have no idea the difference between the two completely different disciplines and what this study is saying.
If highreps aren't the best way then why is piano man so fucking huge?
checkm8 lowrep fags
