or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Random health and exercise thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random health and exercise thoughts - Page 2950

post #44236 of 57313
IDK I dont like to pyramid. Hard to track progress
post #44237 of 57313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldsnap View Post

Gotcha, yea seems like research supports that overall volume is the biggest factor and rep scheme is just whichever one prefers.
I don't go by percentages anymore, just 1 rep under failure for the day.

Yeah.

I can't quote any studies right now but there's a good amount of stuff out there that supports it.

Even if volume is more important than high vs low reps per, you should still do a certain amount of reps per set to get the most hypertrophy (is this called "metabolic stress"? not sure...). 

I don't think 10 sets of 3 is the same as 3 sets of 10, even though volume is constant. The reason the effect is different is largely because Time Under Tension is greater in 3x10. 10x3, on the other hand, might be better for strength purposes.

 

You should watch this if you haven't.

 

post #44238 of 57313
ran 10k today in one hour and it felt... good? i dunno wtf is going on, strange feels brahs.
post #44239 of 57313
Hollllyyyy shit that Elliot Rodger phaggot posted on the misc
post #44240 of 57313
Such a classic miscer hating women and not looking like he lifted.
post #44241 of 57313
Quote:
Originally Posted by conceptionist View Post

A certain amount of reps in a set is important for hypertrophy, but overall volume is more important. With the compounds, I'd rather do more sets with fewer reps.

This is absolutely wrong.

http://g-se.com/uploads/biblioteca/full2013.pdf
post #44242 of 57313
Giving lifting advice because you read a lot of stuff online is like giving sex advice because you watch a lot of porn.
post #44243 of 57313
What if its educational porn
post #44244 of 57313
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract View Post


This is absolutely wrong.

http://g-se.com/uploads/biblioteca/full2013.pdf

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract View Post


This is absolutely wrong.

http://g-se.com/uploads/biblioteca/full2013.pdf

Absolutely wrong is very strong statement.

It could be wrong according to the study you linked.

 

There's other studies out there that show that overall volume is more important. Look at the video by Eric Helms (one of the most known researchers for bodybuilding training and dieting and coach of 3dmj) I posted. 

 

Anyway, did you read the rest of my post and the other one I made after that?

Quote:
 Even if volume is more important than high vs low reps per, you should still do a certain amount of reps per set to get the most hypertrophy (is this called "metabolic stress"? not sure...). 

I don't think 10 sets of 3 is the same as 3 sets of 10, even though volume is constant. The reason the effect is different is largely because Time Under Tension is greater in 3x10. 10x3, on the other hand, might be better for strength purposes.

 

I said that overall volume is genrally seen as more important than reps in a set. That is, 5x5 with 50% results in 25 total reps at 50%. 2 set of 10 reps with 50% is 20 total reps and my argument is therefore that the former could be be better for hypertrophy.

 

However, given a set volume, say 30 total reps, higher reps per set could be beneficial. For 30 total reps, I would then argue that 3 sets of 10 could be better for growth than 10 sets of 3, with the same weight in both cases. The metabolic stress would be higher in 3 sets of 10.

 

And yes, this is just based from studies and the many discussions I've read on another forum where some very knowledgable lifters (with experience) post and link these studies and talk about their anecdotal findings.

 

What I wrote is pretty much what your study said. Metabolic stress (higher reps or TuT, etc) is important. Mechanic stress is not all there is to it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeKay View Post

Giving lifting advice because you read a lot of stuff online is like giving sex advice because you watch a lot of porn.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarude View Post

What if its educational porn

Lol, but its pretty true.

 

You can't compare science with a video showing the act / how something is performed without any instructions or educational aspect to it. Its like comparing reading studies about strength training or reverse engineering all the Sheiko routines to watching Arnold squat in Pumping Iron.

 

Or did you mean that porn is too far removed from reality, like many studies?

In that case I say that some findings are relevant, but you have to check how the study was set up.


Edited by conceptionist - 5/25/14 at 3:05pm
post #44245 of 57313

Lately, I've found myself just focusing on 1-2 lifts per body part during a session and doing those close to exhaustion.

If I'm on chest/back day, for instance, I'll just do DB bench and cable row for like 4-5 working sets with anywhere from 5-12 reps till I can't really do much more with it. Then I'll drop down the weight a ton and and do a set of 10-12 for a pump. Not sure how it'll affect things in the longer term, but it feels pretty great.


I'll do a lighter set of a different exercise as a finisher i.e. 3x10 incline press machine or pulldowns or whatnot.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeeKay View Post

Giving lifting advice because you read a lot of stuff online is like giving sex advice because you watch a lot of porn.


I'm confused. This would imply that someone that did a valid study can't speak about the subject because they're not huge?

post #44246 of 57313
Quote:
Originally Posted by conceptionist View Post

Absolutely wrong is very strong statement.
It could be wrong according to the study you linked.

There's other studies out there that show that overall volume is more important. Look at the video by Eric Helms (one of the most known researchers for bodybuilding training and dieting and coach of 3dmj) I posted. 

Anyway, did you read the rest of my post?
I said that overall volume is genrally seen as more important than reps in a set. That is, 5x5 with 50% results in 25 total reps at 50%. 2 set of 10 reps with 50% is 20 total reps and my argument is therefore that the former could be be better for hypertrophy.

However, I said that given a set volume, say 30 total reps, higher reps per set could be beneficial. For 30 total reps, I would then argue that 3 sets of 10 would be better for growth than 10 sets of 3, with the same weight in both cases.

And yes, this is just based from studies and the many discussions I've read on another forum where some very knowledgable lifters (with experience) post and link these studies and talk about their anecdotal findings.

What I wrote is pretty much what your study said. Metabolic stress (higher reps or TuT, etc) is important. Mechanic stress is not all there is to it.


Lol, but its pretty true.

You can't compare science with a video showing the act / how something is performed without any instructions or educational aspect to it. Its like comparing reading studies about strength training or reverse engineering all the Sheiko routines to watching Arnold squat in Pumping Iron.

Or did you mean that porn is too far removed from reality, like many studies?
In that case I say that some findings are relevant, but you have to check how the study was set up.

I read your whole post you are giving bad advice.
post #44247 of 57313
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract View Post

I read your whole post you are giving bad advice.

Ok.
Then please address my points one by one and point out where I'm wrong.

I may have written some faults, and if so I'd like to know which they are. Anyone can simply say "you are wrong because you're weak and have no experience". That's easy. I'd rather have a discussion.
post #44248 of 57313
Quote:
Originally Posted by conceptionist View Post

Ok.
Then please address my points one by one and point out where I'm wrong.

I may have written some faults, and if so I'd like to know which they are. Anyone can simply say "you are wrong because you're weak and have no experience". That's easy. I'd rather have a discussion.

I posted a link to a study that explained hypertrophy, that should about cover it. You want the most amount of "waste products" in your muscle as possible. When you rest your body is trying to get all the lactic acid and shit out of the cells. This is why occlusion training has proven to be so effective.
post #44249 of 57313
I'm going to say something that might surprise you to see coming from someone who is a medical doctor, a published author, and has spoken at national research conferences:

The vast majority of research is pure crap and not applicable to real life situations.

While research can be a great tool, it has so many shortcomings that it often fails to make any sort of impact on patient care and management. These studies are often ridden with multiple types of bias, perhaps mostly selection and confirmation biases. They choose patient populations that in no way, shape, or form mimic real life. They attempt to make broad generalizations over a widely diverse group of people. Most research studies can't distinguish between a statistically significant finding(meaning, on paper there is a difference) vs. a clinically significant finding(meaning, the difference is big enough that anyone should give a crap about it). While journals boast of peer review as a method of preventing false information from being spread, every year there are countless numbers of retractions and corrections made -- and those are just the authors who bother to recheck their work. Most of these studies have small, specific sample sizes in extremely controlled environments and haven't been reproduced by anyone or made subject to a meta-analysis with similar studies. And very few meet the challenge of providing a large multi-center randomized control study -- the so-called Cadillac of research study types.

Just because there is a research study that says x is better than y, that doesn't mean that x is better than y. And even if there's 20 studies saying that x is better than y, that doesn't mean that y isn't better than x in certain people in certain circumstances. When any sort of decision making becomes algorithmic, meaning you are choosing yes or no based on someone else's recommendations, the individuality of patient care is lost and people will do poorly.

Now take all this I wrote about medical research and consider that these exercise and kinesiology studies typically have 1/10th the subject pool size and face even less scrutiny when being published.
post #44250 of 57313
I've been feeling pretty lazy lately. On lower body days I just do my sets of squats and deadlifts then go home and on my bench days I don't even feel like doing any extra accessories. feelsbadman.jpg
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Random health and exercise thoughts