/r/ing conclusive studies about the difference in hypertrophy training (like Lyle McDonalds) vs traditional...

This.
Notably a few trail runners have better built bodies... most of them are into sports like climbing though.

OP, your best bet may be to look into the russians. I feel like they did research (although Im also under the impression it's hardly peer reviewed etc)

nice trips

but I'm not untrained, so I should've noted that this is for trained persons. And besides, almost anything will 'work' for an untrained person, but I'm looking for what's going to yield the fastest gains.

And I'd wager that if you took pools of untrained individuals, and put one through aerobic endurance training, the other through anaerobic strength training, that the latter would see more muscular gains.

Meaning that it doesn't necessarily boil down to time under tension being the optimum.

Take a look through articles at tnation.com, which is where I get the science to formulate all of my bullshit from. They cite studies and sources and a couple of legit doctors and neuroscientists that write for them. Beware that they have a lot of writers, some of which will contradict each other.

As far as I know, no one has done any studies specifically to test what you're describing. Truth is the science is still 50-60 years behind the methodology and studies are done not to find what work but rather why qnd how what works actually works.

Here you go sempai

It's too bad that it's so under-researched. I, OP, personally think it boils down to frequency and volume being the leading beneficiaries (of course, only if the prerequisite of progressive overload, caloric surplus and adequate recovery are maintained). With intensity being a mediator between excessive volume and/or frequency (too intense, can't lift as much/as often, not intense enough, can lift all day/everyday - both resulting in little progressive overload).

So I guess at the end of the day, maybe it boils down to finding how voume/frequency you're willing to put in, and adjusting the intensity based on that.

>contradict each other

I've been reading tnation for years now, and it's those exact contradictions that leave me wondering like this

Jk here's the real one

You're right on all of that. Time under tension is just one of the tools available; look up glycogen supercompensation for more info on how it stimulates hypertrophy. Good ol' high intensity loading for to help recruit more muscle alternated with periods of high volume for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and explosiveness training for hitting the fast twitch fibers and cardio for optimal atp production (I'm sure there's more to the whole atp thing)

Eh it's kinda the state of exercise science. All over the place. I trust the more prolofic guys and trusted coaches. All of the elder gods of Veeky Forums write there iirc

time under tension in a set taking 30-45 seconds, within which the rep range is 8-15, 3-5 sets, twice or thrice a week, rest peridos of 60-90s.

the reason there is no exact answer is because from person to person and body part to body part, muscles respond differently. its a very delicate balance which is not set in stone but the above provides a stress in most muscles which will result in hypetrophy. there are other methods though, for example the legs respond very well to low reps and heavy weight (look as people who do SS and check out their legs), whereas 3x5 OHP twice a week probably won't get anyone beyond beginner looking level

"Journal of Broscience 2013" kek
They should have put the month to look more legit.

Gains from time under tension peak quickly before returns start to diminish.

I wonder how doable it would be to construct a study using Veeky Forums/reddit/etc to find participants.
Reliable self reporting would be an issue but the rest is easy

what do you mean? if you do TUT based training then after a few months you'll stop making gains?

i think weight and total reps if the main driver of growth. 10x5, 5x10 with good weight, etc. this is why i am a firm believer in a strength base before mass.

I had my thickest legs when I had to cycle 90 miles a week on top of strength training. I think SS followers have leg gains simply because they use them more, not necessarily because of the rep range.

I don't think human biology varies as much as your accrediting it to between individuals. We're all largely similar, and should elicit similar results from similar programs. Some may yield results faster, but the best method should give most individuals the fastest results, with little variance for genetic exceptions (perhaps largely racial, is one I can see).

I think meant they diminish if you're workout turns into turns into a marathon

I agree with it being the state of exercise science, but next to no science is needed to compare training logs of individuals, and contrast it with they're comparative gains.

Interesting idea, and you were just one digit off, you wannabe. But I could see this being dank nonetheless.

interesting, thanks. Unfortunately only one of those had any claims on hypertrophy, and it dealt only with rep ranges.

I would like to move forward on this idea, perhaps we'll start a weekly?

What would participants need to include?

Somethings I can think of:
>Whether or not a caloric surplus was achieved, and proper macros maintained
>Whether or not you had adequate recovery for the majority of the week
>Whether or not you achieved progressive overload

if no, then basically straight into the trash with any of those inputs, we need reliable people. Then continue on with basically listing their workout layout for week? Including movements, reps, sets for all sessions. Relative intensity too?

Idk, just ideas of the top of my head. We'd also have to account for any noob gains.

i wouldn't agree with that (i'm the first guy).

i've seen plenty people respond well to bench presses at 5x5 in terms of chest size, and some who barely responded at all, despite similar programs and strength progressions.

also, if you want big legs, get them strong. powerlifters, oly...these guys have very high squats and lo and behold always have enormous legs too. my overarching point is that different training methods respond to different stimuli, and i think a lot of it depends on muscular size: generally, i think, larger muscles can use a larger and therefore more taxing weight, meaning there's more microtrauma per rep. this larger damage also tends to limit the volume and frequency allowed per week; in my experience and in the experience of others, upper body lifts can be trained more often and with more reps than lower body lifts, with the same period required for recovery. again, there are many factors at play but that's been my experience and i don't think i'm an isolated case here. not saying this is the end all be all but it worth bearing in mind. but hey, maybe i'm completely wrong.

you'd be better accounting for all of them. very rarely is satistical data of zero use.

for example, someone might not recover properly because of their volume/frequency setup. you wouldn't just ignore that relationship.

i'd definitely take part in this, on both the guinea pig side and the analysis side.

Also, weights used relative to last week would have to be included (to account for which program was best at producing linear strength gains).

And the gains log would have to come from muscles being measured or weight increasing while body fat stays the same/ decreases (bf% always decreases when you add lean mass, by definition).

idk throw out some ideas pls

Were calories/macros, adequate rest and progressive overload satisfied in these contrasting individuals?

According to your hypothesis, wouldn't a larger weight, and therefore a weight more prone to induce micro trauma, hence hypertrophy, be beneficial for ALL muscle groups? Why would this logic only apply to the lower half of one's body?

To an extent, I agree with this logic, but do believe it applies to the whole body (also while I'm in favor of compound barbell movements, since they allow use of a heavier weight).

Also, if the larger weight limits volume and frequency, then explain the Bulgarian oly lifters succeeding and exceeding while max squatting twice a day? And SS requiring max squat movements 3x per week? And why its standard among oly lifters, such as myself, to lift 5-6 times a week?

idk, I don't mean to be rude or dismissive, it just sounds like bro science when points don't hold up, and any advice should be able to withstand solid questioning.

this is why I wanted them to list all the movements, reps, sets for all sessions they did, as then you could see the volume and frequency.. I don't know how else to account for it other than that.

Well well well looks like we have a plan then, I imagine we can recruit more as we go along. I bet le reddit /r/fitness would be interested to, as I think you mentioned. Maybe it can be orchestrated on there, since those post are permanent, and probably less prone to lying impostor posters trying to troll us

I am the guy who posted but regret after realizing I am firm believer that calves respond better to high rep ranges

but then again I have small as fuark calves and have never tried going heavy, so idk

no, i don't know what their lives outside of the gym were like, but these people all saw approximately similar gains on 'average' in their bodies. plus, maybe some of their muscles were simply more receptive to growth than others, which is another important factor, so yeah i guess that is fairly shit evidence.

yeah exactly. the lower body can move more weight. i'm saying that the actual number on the bar has to be considered as a factor, too, not just what is relatively heavy. OHP can be trained much more frequently and with more volume than squats can. the weight discrepancy there is also vast.

and as far as i'm aware the bulgarian method is:
1. for athletes with a high work capacity who aren't representative of most people
2. makes use of light weights most of the time.

and as far as i am aware, at the risk of sounding like i dont know anything, but oly lifting is performed usually at low volume per day, which would maintain the approximately same weekly stress as a 3x a week squatting routine with max weights and higher reps such as SS.

where did you here that about OHP? And about the actual number mattering, not the relative heaviness?

and oly volume adds up because you're doing accessory lifts on top of that, like squats, front squats, ohp, etc.. My oly workouts aren't any shorter than when I was powerlifting, but yeah I'd say the overall volume spent lifting is lower (longer breaks on main lifts). Obviously it's going to vary between individuals and whatever though, just like powerlifitng or bodybuilding would. My main point about that though was that the success of SS in building legs doesn't necessarily mean it's the ideal route, there may be better ways, and that the best way is far conclusive by any stretch of the word.

I just used the Bulgarians as an example, yes they clearly an outlier. The bulgarian method I was referring too though was there squat program in which you max out twice a day, I think 5-6 days a week.

for oly lifts, I meant lower volume with one day being compared to another, but on a weekly basis, comparing SS to oly, my volume is much higher doing oly

i didn't hear exactly that but let me give you another example. some powerlifters lifting huge weights will deadlift just 2 or 3 reps a week, or even one session every 2 weeks. the weight is too heavy and provides too much of a systemic stress to recover from. this also happens to be the heaviest lift they will perform. however, benching heavy, it being a lower absolute weight, doesn't require the same recovery. OHP even less, in my experience. also in the late stages of the TM, its common for budding powerlifters to reduce their squat volume on both VD and ID because the absolute weight is too high to recover from if the standard 5x5/1x5 was used. i've experienced this myself - after a while, 400lb 5x5s beat your ass up too much. i now only do 2RMs on my ID. i'm also doing an OHP emphasis with my TM and i can batter myself with 2 VDs a week and still push up the ID almost weekly, which i alter between a 5RM and an 8RM. i believe this to be because the smaller absolute weight isn't causing as much stress to my muscles.

i'm not aware of that bulgarian program so i can't comment on that

interesting. I wonder if the higher volume and frequency of the bench relative to deadlift could be attributed to how it uses less of your body overall though? Since deadlift effects the squat so much, and bench doesn't really affect any of the power lifts other than itself. And focusing on squat will indirectly help with deads anyway.

This is why I deadlift so low volume personally, usually around 5 reps a week, but I'm just a novice amateur.

>TM
?
>VD
?
>ID
?

Also, mirin the squat, but I didn't feel like that while doing ~350x5 bi weekly, no full on 5x5 though. And I have never heard of anything like this from the, admittedly very different, olympic lifting circles.

Do you have any sources for this stuff?

Sorry, in class, but ill make a thread 11pst for putting it together

And to sum up some of what was said, you're saying that in order to maximize hypertrophy for the entire body, you'd have tailor a routine that trains each muscle group in such a way that is best for it's own individual growth? i.e heavy sets for legs vs high frequency OHP

And you're also saying that the amount you should train a movement is partially dependent on the absolute weight you use in said movement? Where a higher weight would imply lower frequency.

ok, great. a thread on here or /r/fitness?

read justin lascek's ebooks on the texas method, he very briefly touches on this. better yet, check out powerlifting programs and compare the squat and DL volume to bench.

that wouldn't cover why they (sometimes) also do a substantial amount of overhead pressing for shoulder health, given that OHP affects bench largely, though. to me it looks to be as though its because absolute weight is simply tougher for the body to handle. also because heavier weights fire up more of the body, maybe the cumulated stress throughout all the muscles being hit at high weight makes recovery more of a job for the body/CNS.

also sorry i assumed you'd know - TM = texas method, VD = volume day, ID = intensity day. its structured around 2 days, volume and intensity; volume is where the majority of the work's week happens and intensity is where you set PRs. the heart of the TM is to use VD to drive up ID weekly to PR constantly. early on i got away with 5x5 squats on VD and a 5RM on ID, but over time i've had to reduce that to 3x5 VD and 2RM ID. my body doesn't like the bigger weights and it now responds better to lower volumes and i believe that if i were to go back to 5x5/5RM, i'd end up overreaching regardless of my calorie intake.

incidentally i think this is the idea behind 5/3/1's use of the 'training max' instead of actual 1RM - it keeps weights low enough to accomodate that volume, given that big weights are assumed.

yeah, in fact that exact setup is what's made noticeably optimal gains in my case. i began with a skeleton program (texas method) and added in accessories of varying volumes and frequencies and over time i noticed a pattern emergig: big muscles needed big weights and got hit harder per rep, whereas small muscle sused small weights and were comparitvely stressed less per rep, given all other factors were constant, and could be trained using more reps, higher relative weight (intensity) and more frequency.

also yes. lower frequency would be one way to get around that, but either intensity or volume could be manipulated, too. personally, i dropped volume as my weights got high, and it was necessary for me to continue to progress in both size and strength.

i've got carried away here but my basic point is that, in creating an optimal routine, absolute weight on the bar should be considered when programming for different muscle groups, but this is going to be a function of strength of course

If you do squats, gravity will feed your gains to your penis.
T. Worked for me ; )

Why not both? Im putting my skype in the email field. Add me and we can talk later.

Theres no email field anymore. It's captainniggersaurus.

>captainniggersaurus
this project is doomed to fail

Will do on the ebook. And in reponse to the second reply, I split my days up into volume and intensity focus too, out of coincidence.

Ok, my aesthetic work has been so unorganized lately, I certainly have nothing to lose by going about it in the way you suggest. After all, it's not so different than what I'm doing currently, just a bit more rigorous in it's organization. I've just been hitting aesthetics in the 3x10 style following after oly, cycling what I hit in sort of an A B pattern, which is similar what you recommend it seems.

Thanks for the thoughts. And to be clear, in your training, do you prioritize strength gains or hypertrophy gains as the ultimate goal when programming?

>proprietary software

i prioritize strength in the lower body and both strength and size in the upper. i never needed to bother with leg hypertrophy because they got huge from strength training/low reps alone. i had to add in more volume to get equal growth in the upper body once i realized that 3x5 or whatever wasn't enough, just in case that wasn't clear.

best of luck and make another thread if you learn anything worth sharing. this has been a good one and it would be nice to have another like it later.

WRT deadlift vs bench (or other lift) recovery, 2 points:
There is not only local recovery but total systemic recovery to be accounted for. Bench or Press or various other smaller lifts have a lesser total impact on the body than deadlifts and this is why they're programmed less frequently. This is also why the Olympic lifts can be performed relatively more frequently, because of the limited (or completely missing, if you drop your lifts even during sets or do only singles) eccentric and due to the technical nature of the lifts (many misses are "don't have it" and drop or get turned into pulls, whereas if you fail a deadlift, it is a fucking grinder). So again, less systemic stress.
Also there is a mental or neural aspect of pulling heavy deads (rarely are they programmed for more than 3-5 reps) versus smaller lifts which are often done for 8+ or 10+ reps, and this is a different stress on recovery.

WRT to the different types of programs:
Volume equated there is no difference in hypertrophy. That's kind of like saying that "when body weight is equated, that fat woman's cardiac output was equal to that kenyan marathoner's" LOL.
The point of a hypertrophy program is to NOT have the volume equated. Which is why the larger reps per set, why many of the programs (not all, but many) program to stay away from failure or even RPE 9 and "go for the pump" and if (as some suggest) that volume overall is the key driver (provided that the rep range isn't excessively high and the weights aren't too low in relation to the 1RM), then these programs will be more effective for growth.
Of course they won't be as effective for strength at the top end i.e. 1RM if they don't at least occasionally go over 80% but they will still be at least somewhat effective and that's enough for most curlbrahs.

>Bench or Press or various other smaller lifts have a lesser total impact on the body than deadlifts
exactly my point. if one was to deadlift one's bench or press 1RM, that stress would be next to nothing. the large weight is what makes the deadlift so difficult to recover from, or in the very least, they both imply each other.

also when you said "volume equated" what did you mean?

(continued)
There's a theory that hypertrophy cycles help with strength training because the extra muscle can then be trained neuralogically. This is why many programs that train strength have some kind of GPP or hypertrophy or reps block. This is why programs like BFS alternate weeks of higher volume with higher intensity and have 1 week of every 4 go into hypertrophy ranges. This is why Sheiko has so much fucking volume, but also alternates weeks of high and low intensity (in a pattern which differs for each of the three main lifts) while providing skill training in technique and dipping into the 90% range usually only for its peaking blocks.

It's really only the beginner programs that tend to ignore the higher reps, and that they do for a purpose: because they want you to learn the lifts and train your neural responses (which actually respond first as a beginner) to build strength, which is then used in the intermediate programs to perform higher volume work using heavier weights in a pattern that alternates high and low intensity.

Yes, thanks. I have to say I now really agree with the methods you described. By simply reducing some of the volume, frequency and intensity, and therefore "systematic strain" as I think you called it, by reducing lifts such as deadlift or max squat, I make a lot of room for more volume, frequency and intensity elsewhere in less strenuous lifts (OHP, biceps, etc). So it agrees very much with my original philosophy on gains upon creating the thread, and resonates well with me. Thanks for the advice, user.

Not to imply that I'm going to take reducing my squat frequency/volume to an extreme, it was just for the sake of example.

Not when you bench 2xbodyweight you fucking dyel

(continued)

tl;dr
do your fucking SS progression, then pick show or go: if show, do a BB program, and if go, pick a program for athletes, which may mean a barbell sport program.

Lyle McDonald's Generic Bulk or AWorkoutRoutine.com's Muscle Builder are both U/L splits, you can do UxLxUxx if you wanna be a brah, do ULxULxx if not, you can mix up the lifts to make it a 3x/weekly full-body routin.

From PP, I suggest TM with the 4-day split, the "Nebraska Model," the Bill Starr HLM model. BFS is very good as well and with some choices of lifts could be aimed at powerlifters OR weightlifters. Sheiko is also a good choice for PL but because of its volume, you could probably use some of the accessory lift volume and repurpose it to a hybrid "powerbuilder" program by taking some of the "chest" and other stuff and putting in curlbrah exercises.

There was a study that showed 10x3 versus 3x10 had equal volume and equal hypertrophy, but the guys lifting 10x3 took forever to complete the workouts and often puked, hated it, had a few dropouts, etc., but the 3x10 loved it and were ready for more. Hence, the purpose of the reps (IMO) being higher is to allow you to tolerate more work.

Sheiko uses low reps (1-3 on diddles, 1-4 on squats, 1-6 on bench) but keeps you so far away from failure on any set that it allows a lot of work once you get used to it. It's kind of a hybrid program in a way, but provides lots of technique work on the big lifts.

what would you think about usig sheiko for OHP rather than bench? i remember nuckols saying it would be doable on his 3x a week int med bench but i wasn't sure about sheiko.

you bench more than you deadlift?

retard

I think it would be fine. but consider the following ....

The new Sheiko "intermediate medium load" program has, over two months of the prep period, 1490 total reps of squat, bench and deadlift. It ALSO HAS 1730 TOTAL REPS OF ACCESSORY WORK. I think a lot of people ignore this fact and I don't think that most people who use Sheiko-style stuff do it for every lift or do all of the recommended accessory work.

Most of this accessory work is unspecified "stuff" like "Chest muscles 4 sets of 6 reps" and other work intended to be done at a weight which is several reps away from failure. There are also "French Press" and "Triceps" and other entries in that 1730 reps.

Why not just do Sheiko and take the majority of the accessory stuff and put it towards the press?

i guess i could do that actually. thanks. since /plg/ loves sheiko, i'm always skeptical about it (they're weak and look like crap).

GOBLIN GET YE GONE

So this only confirms that low-rep = strength over high-reps