STRENGTH TRAINING IS A MEME

Studies are great and all, but in my n=1 anecdote, I get weaker and don't grow unless I'm lifting heavy (80%+ 1RM).

Daily reminder that everyone is a special snowflake when it comes to lifting and nutrition and you need to experiment and find what works best for you.

who makes these threads?

I see so many people in competitive lifting who look fat or dyel or obviously roiding. Common sense tells me strength training ain't all it cracked up to be. I'd rather fail with a 50 lb db than a 500 lb barbell while making only marginally less strength gains.

I did a standard bro split for about a year, mostly isolations 4x10. I got very big and relatively strong (ohp over 1 plate 5x5, bench over 2 plates 5x5, legs meh because I didn't bother much). I decided that I'm big enough for now and just want to get stronger. Switched to basically 5x5 PPL, almost entirely compounds. It's fun to lift heavier and workouts are shorter. But i just don't get a pump or fatigue or doms or anything, and it feels like im wasting my time doing it. I'll give it 6 months and decide what's next

That is one single study with a very limited scope. The consensus for long term results is different and much more nuanced. Stop making excuses to avoid lifting heavy-ass weights.

Strength athletes in the lower weight classes often look pretty jacked.
That is, unless they're olympic weightlifters, who sometimes neglect a lot of muscles and just end up with massive jacked up legs.

strenght is a meme guys,stop doing low reps

1) A master trolle
2) A kid who never made gains
3) A kid who got under heavy weight and got scared
4) A kid who got under heavy weight and then something didn't feel right or he got injured

No matter what, once a person has lifted heavy on a good progressive routine and got stronger than 90% of the rest of the gym, there's no more doubt about low rep routines. For years I've watched some of my gym members lift the same weight 3x12.

Don't let it happen to you kids. Get swole and strong.

So how the fuck are we supposed to progressively overload while being natural? If you do 8 reps it becomes insanely difficult do progress on weight or reps even on a surplus. And if you do your typical bodybuilding brosplit it simply isn't enough frequency to grow for a natural.

If you're gonna post shit like this at least post an alternative, faggot

squeeze the weight harder consentrating on more of a contraction, pause reps, do more reps is all getting stronger. what the fuck do you think your suppose to curl 60lbs dumbbells at some point? your heading for a world of pain if so.

>mfw seeing retards like this in the gym

kek,what's your routine dude?

No one says you should get stronger on dumbbells. shit, get stronger on deadlift, bench, squat, bent over rows and OHP and do what you say is good to grow on acessory work, i.e dumbbells, tricep shit, pulldowns

I'm stating an observation based on everyone between all weight classes. They almost invariably fit the criteria I described.
Roids.
The science says otherwise.
Do another set. Don't limit yourself to 5 types of lifts. Drop the weight and do more reps. My point isn't that you're not allowed to strength train but rather that there's no real need to much less should it be some defacto standard.

are you still doing a routine centered around deadlifts and squats? lmao

Yeah, but start cutting and do high reps to see if you mantain muscle. You won't. Just read research about it. Gaining strenght is the best way to gain muscle mass, as you go to failure and almost failure on those. To go to failure on a dumbbel curl is necessary to grow. And if you're not increasing reps, sets or weight you WILL stall.

no,I'm doing bulgarian light with weighted dips and chin ups.Feels pretty good.

reminder that on Veeky Forums people are either:
1) fat fucks who "powerlift" because they can't lose weight and look aesthetic; these people rationalize "powerlifting" although they will never compete
2) beta dyel cucks who are scared of lifting anything over 20kg and rationalize not doing heavy compounds with these "daily reminder" threads
3) fat/dyel cucks who don't even lift, they spilled over from /b/
4) "normal" anons that understand that as a natural, you have to train in all rep ranges to be both strong and look good (3-5, 5-8, 8-15)

so, daily reminder that you're the number 2, just neck yourself already

this

Um, okay. I've been strength training since I was 14, being 23 now - I bench 180kg, squat 260kg and deadlift 300kg. Mostly low reps high weight with occassional high rep mesocycles (UD 2.0 for when cutting).

I'm 91kg 5'11, I think you're full of bullshit and haven't tried strength training properly. Progressive overload works. My mate is huge and only does low reps heavy weight and benches 200kg, never touched gear. Nethier have I.

Diet will dictate what you look like, followed by style of training and cardio. Lift heavy, get stronger, eat just enough, don't get fat, you'll be big and lean.

However, I will agree that it increases the risk and rate of injuries aqquired. I have torn my pec (in the muscle, thankfully), broken my thumb, my foot (dropped a barbell - this was during my undergrad and I didn't sleep much after cramming the night before) and have over stretched ligaments in my back, and possibly have herniated disks (awaiting MRI, which was from a study I was in, but will show any herniated discs on the lumbar & thoriac aspects of the spine)

so yeh fair point on that

>but start cutting and do high reps to see if you mantain muscle. You won't
Cutting will cause you to lose some muscle mass. Not sure where that came from. Has nothing to do with it.
>Gaining strength is the best way to gain muscle mass, as you go to failure and almost failure on those
Yes just what I said, do high reps to failure instead of low rep aka strength routine to failure.
>And if you're not increasing reps, sets or weight you WILL stall
All that matters is you push each lift to fatigue. Eventually this should lead you to a point where you must increase reps, sets or weight, yes? That doesn't suddenly lead to making a strength routine better.
I have a full home gym and everything I say is based on scientific evidence and extensive personal research. I, unlike others within the fitness community spreading advice, stand nothing to gain by what I say except for the gains I make :^)
You could have made the same gains doing a high volume routine with 30-90% of your 1rm as per the study I linked in OP. Try reading it sometime.
>
I'd say drastically reducing the odds of getting injured is a pretty big reason. Of course if you're happy with your strength routine and feel great, keep doing it. I'm not here to change your mind. This is for the people who aren't satisfied with their strength routine, such as myself. Say what you want about me but I pursue something I'm extremely dedicated to it and strength training has just been shit for me every step of the way. I feel much better doing a high rep scheme and the science backs it up.

>Japan

what the fuck do those manlets know about strength

they think you need to look like a fat baby to be strong

you're like trappy chan, except he/she/it advocates powerlifting while looking like shit, and you advocate doing barbell only deadlifts, while also looking like shit. lol

post body science man

okay then,post body

nice trips

you're not as big as you should be for 9 years lifting lmao. So what you're strong? Literally, no one will know or care because you're not even big and don't even play any sport to apply it.

don't listen to this strength autist

roidedman.jpg

well,this proves everything
good luck with your 30 lbs db presses

Perhaps posting a picture of countless "strength athletes" who look like absolute dogshit would prove everything too? I go by what the research tells me not by bullshit pics of genetics and roids. Perhaps you'd like to try and refute the actual evidence and try again?

>The science says otherwise.

We've got an endless line of people, men and women, who got strong with low rep and who couldn't do shit with high rep. These people are part of "the science" too. A vast wealth of data points. You've got a shitstain link you purport says otherwise. I don't think you've overcome the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

This is excellent bait tho. I'm full.

8 years for gyno chest and a small back?
Kek

Have you actually read the study? Or do you have any background in a scientific degree/psot-grad and know how to pick at papers and find the flaws?

>Forty-nine healthy young men who had been engaging in RT for at least the past 2 yr.

Already resistance trained; was their previous weight training method recorded accurately? No.

>12 week longitudinal study

Is this enough to determine such an outcome? For 12 weeks, sure.

>Dietary records. Dietary intake records were collected at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 wk

Great, but was the diet standardized and was the supplementation taken standardized?

Superficially interesting paper but it has its limitations and flaws, as does every research project. True results would require a longitudinal study, or cohort with intervention, of more than a few years to really determine said outcome.

Research is like that, though - I'm a genticist with a sports science background and doing undergrad & masters projects were always faced with those annoying limitations due to grants not being big enough, or the group supplying the grant want a certain deadline, or the experiment wasn't designed as well as it could have been.

Fact is, I've made the majority of my gains through strength training and little through volume training. When I have trained high volume with a lower perecentage of my 1RM, I did not make any gains in strength and little in increased myonuclei content. How do I know? Study I participated in, was a 20 week long study, cohort. I did the high volume training. Sadly didn't get published as it never had enough participants due to a poor recruitment method at the PhDs hand. Shame really, would've been interesting, though I'm not really keen on having another muscle biopsy again.

Matter of the fact is, strength training will exhibit profound strength gains while simutaneously causing hypertrophy, it is ideal to follow, especially for load on the skeletal system & joints.

yes you're right,one more question
how long have you been lifting?

I love strength training but i have noticed that this is true from personal experience. Thats why i added days where i do high rep/volume stuff on some days.
I mean just think about it, if strength training and getting PRs was all that matters for aesthetics, Jason Blaha would have been the next Zyzz. Every guy that strongly supports low rep only/strength focused training usually looks like shit and blames his genetics.
Just look at bodybuilders and how they train, if anyone knows about gaining size its them and theyre not doing triples, singles or even fives.
I still strength train but ive added more high rep work for extra aesthetics amd you should too instead of blindly following some ideology.

I play Rugby Union, prop. Played for BUCS first divison.

I also balance a PhD with a lot of part time work as a clinical scientist, while planning a wedding and looking after an ill mother, of course I'm not going to be as big as I could be. It's fucking difficult.

post pics of yourself. Yeah, I actually have gyno, pubertal. Have tried to get surgery when I was younger, but refused by the NHS. Don't really care anymore, there's more to life.
As for back, kek. My back isn't small in the slightest.

oh and as for the 8-9 years lifting thing, I didn't start competing and properly lifting with regards to strength training until I was 19, which is when results really came in (too busy being a teenager, having a social life, travelling with whatever I could make and studying) so let's keep that at 3 and a half years, nearly 4.

stay mad bruvs

jesus christ guys,how big do you think someone should look like after 9 years?

post something. are you a beta faggot who reads journals whole day, makes tidy little excel spreadsheets of workouts, but never actually works out? what the fuck lol

what are you even trying to prove? why did you make this thread? if it works so great, make us believe. do the shit that the sceince people say, then post results, until then you can fuck off

>i'm afraid of lifting heavy
>better go make a Veeky Forums thread to validate my fears

They probably think at 9 years I'd look like a guy roiding for 5 years, because they've clearly not lifted properly in their lives, or are short and get gains easily. I dunno man, like is body dysmoprhia this bad?

I weigh bloody 91kg, I'm not exactly going to be small!

This faggot doesn't even know how to read or criticize journals properly. Clearly has no scientific background, and if he/she does have one, it's not in a biological sciences I can tell you that. Or they're being incredibly lazy and/or selectively baised to egg on their ego for their high volume routine.

What's up quad

You look good but strength training isnt the answer to all of life's questions.
Many people just can't look good with it. My friend did it for years and he stayed in dyel mode, switched to high rep and volume and noticed way better aesthetic results.

>just look at bodybuilders
but most of them are actually strong, and most of the oldschool ones used strength routines for the first few years of their training

also, a bodybuilder by definition will be juiced, and it's okay for him to be because his goal is to be as big, lean, shredded as possible, but the roids will change the way he can and should train, so your logic is shitty

Yes they may be strong but they mostly work in higher rep ranges, go to failure do high volume etc etc

I know, I'm just saying it isn't to say strength training means you wont get big, and strength training (done correctly) will lead to greater strength gains. But of course everybody will vary due to minor genetic differences, lifestyles and psychological differences. For some, high volume training is more enjoyable and less taxing and so they'll train more - ergo greater response because you are increasing stimuli, apetite may increase more stimulating increased feed and thus growth. Many variables.

I'm lucky in that I carry a few genes related to increased muscle performance and strength, so obviously strength training suited me as I excelled in it, as I did sprinting and in rugby. You need to enjoy what you're doing too.

Nah senpai, you got me confused with someone else. But we can play some rugby, hit me up at Manchester

>Oh, my ex-bf was also into lifting, user!
>How much can you bench? Chad was pretty strong
>Just that much...? Have you been working out long?
>Yeah... sorry user, I have to leave now

>We've got an endless line of people, men and women, who got strong with low rep and who couldn't do shit with high rep
No you don't. You have beginners who will make gains off any kind of consistent routine. You got autismos who do the same lift over and over again so rules of specificity apply. Of course they get better at performing the same lift if that's all they do. And you got little else. Sure, lifting heavier will make better strength gains but how much better and at what cost? It's not worth it, not even close.
>Already resistance trained; was their previous weight training method recorded accurately? No.
If they weren't resistance trained you say they just made beginner gains. Fact is this is a good example because making gains while already trained is harder than when not.
>Matter of the fact is, strength training will exhibit profound strength gains while simutaneously causing hypertrophy, it is ideal to follow, especially for load on the skeletal system & joints.
It will grow your bones, so will any kind of resistance training. Strength training is not good for your joints, not even close. And it's bad for your cartilage. And discs. And meniscus. And all kinds of other shit. You don't need heavy lifting for the benefits, not even close.
You haven't posted a shred of evidence to the contrary. Furthermore let's just say lifting heavier is better for strength gains. But how much better? And why the fuck should I care if I lose out on some odd percentage of efficiency in strength when
a. i'm still making strength gains
b. i'm not working with a weight that could destroy my health

>do SS
>tear meniscus in right knee
>partial tears throughout rotator cuff
>can't lift anymore
Barbel lifting is necessary and unsafe. inb4 hurr durr bad form. Nah, fuck off retards

I'm sorry but are you failing to understand? Their method of training was not previously recorded; how can you not just speculate any lack of significant difference was due to parallels in training piror to the study? A diary should have been taken 12 weeks leading to the study and then during the cohort.

Funny, my MRIs, ultrasounds and the rest show quite the contrary. Injuries are greater, but who's to say it's not good for your joints? There are numerous studies pointing the opposite out.

This isn't a dbeate, if you want evidence to show the contrary then learn to fucking research you dipshit. Go to NCBI, pubmed, wiley, BMJ, google scholar, learn how to actually read a journal instead of spouting nonsense from whatever you see. I'm not here to educate you. Educate yourself, thisi s Veeky Forums. I'm here to state your study posted has flaws and can be partly redudant when looking at the limitations it presents.

And yeah, why the fuck should you care? I don't care what you're doing with regards to lifting and nor should you care what I do. But to state that I would be just as strong and doing as well on a high volume routine is ridiculous. There are so many confounding variables that affect it. I personally find it boring and would find myself not training as hard, as such my strength and 'gains' would decline. Esepcially with the current hectic stress of having a PhD, a clinical research job and a wedding to plan.

>Their method of training was not previously recorded; how can you not just speculate any lack of significant difference was due to parallels in training piror to the study?
Because you don't keep making gains if you don't keep training? Hello? Are you literally retarded?
> but who's to say it's not good for your joints? There are numerous studies pointing the opposite out.
No, there are not. There are no studies, not a single one, that prove heavy lifting is good for your joints. What studies show is building muscle to aid in lifting is good for your joints. Guess what genius? High volume training builds muscle without straining your joints so much. Gee, who would have thought?
>But to state that I would be just as strong and doing as well on a high volume routine is ridiculous
No it isn't. In fact I've seen no evidence to suggest you'd be doing remarkably better with a strength routine. Would you look stronger? Nope. Would you be stronger? Probably. How much stronger? That's where my philosophy on training diverges. I don't care about optimizing strength or how quickly I build strength because
a. I'll build strength regardless
b. I'll do it without worry about injury

>Forty-nine resistance-trained men (23 ± 1 yr, mean ± SE) performed 12 wk of whole-body RT
>Subjects were randomly allocated into a higher-repetition (HR) group who lifted loads of ∼30-50% of their maximal strength (1RM) for 20–25 repetitions/set (n = 24) or a lower-repetition (LR) group (∼75–90% 1RM, 8–12 repetitions/set, n = 25)

>here is an example of two types of bodybuilding training and why it contradicts with powerlifting training
Have this
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/

>Following a 2-week preparatory phase, participants were randomly assigned to either a high-volume (VOL; n = 14, 4 × 10–12 repetitions with ∼70% of one repetition maximum [1RM], 1-min rest intervals) or a high-intensity (INT; n = 15, 4 × 3–5 repetitions with ∼90% of 1RM, 3-min rest intervals) training group for 8 weeks
>Compared to VOL, greater improvements (P < 0.05) in lean arm mass (5.2 ± 2.9% vs. 2.2 ± 5.6%) and 1RM BP (14.8 ± 9.7% vs. 6.9 ± 9.0%) were observed for INT
>It appears that high-intensity resistance training stimulates greater improvements in some measures of strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men during a short-term training period.

Sorry. Due to the quality of your posts and then I read rugby I thought you were an old useful trip. Either way good thread.

Oh my god, I give up on you. You're uneducated and trying to use a poorly designed study to back up your 'philosophy'. This is laughable, please never try to become an academic, least not in biological sciences.

Fucking Americans, think they know everything, with no credentials to their names and will just see a headline and an abstract and think "HEY THIS MEANS X Y Z AND SAYS IT ON THE ABSTRACT SO IT MUST BE TRUE AND NOW HAVE ANY LIMITATIONS", yeah world of research and academia always has limitations. Sorry bud, you need to lay off looking at papers. You are using selective bais.

The first group didn't receive proper rest intervals. The second group received 3 minute rest intervals where the first group only received 1 minute. That alone could equal the difference in gains right there.

>participants were randomly assigned to either a high-volume (VOL; n = 14, 4 × 10–12 repetitions with ∼70% of one repetition maximum [1RM], 1-min rest intervals) or a high-intensity (INT; n = 15, 4 × 3–5 repetitions with ∼90% of 1RM, 3-min rest intervals) training group for 8 weeks

I played rugby at Uni, still do as a PhD part time (part time clinical researcher on NHS stp).

But yeah, probably have brain damage from it.

To every poster here thinking it's strength vs aesthetics. It's actually lower volume vs higher volume. Strength training focuses a lot on neural adaptation and getting stronger through increasing the efficiency of your technique, because you don't wanna lift yourself out of your weight class. This is the strength base everyone is talking about. Being able to move bigger weights because you taught your body how to do it.

Now at the end of the day, the thing that is actually going to make your muscles grow is overall volume for that particular muscle. If a dude doing a PPLxPPL and a dude full body strength training only with reps between 1-5, were doing the same overall weekly volume (reps*sets*percentage of 1RM), both of them are going to make the same gains.

thank you

Are you retarded or do you have to train to be this stupid?
Do you know literally anything about training? That paper was comparing two types of common training styles. If you knew literally anything about training you would understand that.

Different intensities require different rest intervals. Generally speaking, the least amount of rest you can get away with for recovery is preferred. The intensities and rest given in the paper is the TEXTBOOK definition of optimal training.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16095405

Alright mang you convinced me

4 years lifting purely for strength, still look quite dyel.

what should i shift to? feel like changing the pace.

No that is patently false. If you're lifting 70% of your true 1RM for 10-12 reps you will be just as fatigued as doing the 3-5 rep equivalent meaning your ATP stores will be equally depleted and require equal rest. Intensities is a buzzword. The defining variables here are %1RM, reps and sets. Not giving equal rest periods is irresponsible.

>4 years lifting purely for strength, still look quite dyel.
Just out of curiosity, what are your lifts and how much do you weigh right now.

reached 1.25/2.25/3.5/4.25 before cutting last year thus lost some strankth
but i'm hovering around 80kg (176lbs) at 175cm (5'7) 15% bf

If you've ever trained high repetition vs low intensity, you'd know that's bullshit.
Your beginner knowledge is showing

Checked, other dude, but your 10RM is around 75% and what you can push for 10 reps. Your 5RM is around 86%. So, what is harder 4x3-5 with 90% or 4x10-12 with 70%? Also, if you read the study, it does mention how many of the participants were able to comply with the training plan and it's been some time since I last read it, but I'm pretty sure the percentage of compliance is pretty much the same between both groups.

german volume training

I've trained everything. I have so god damn much fitness equipment I'm swimming in it. It's not bullshit and there's nothing to prove otherwise.
All of the data points are based off their 1RM so 10 reps will not be any harder than 5 reps because the 10th and 5th rep respectively will be as many reps as they can do with that given %1rm.

Furthermore here's a study which literally proves exactly what I just said was wrong with that study almost word for word:

>Twenty-one young resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either a group that performed a resistance training (RT) program with 1-minute rest intervals (SHORT) or a group that employed 3-minute rest intervals (LONG). All other RT variables were held constant. The study period lasted 8 weeks with subjects performing 3 total body workouts a week comprised 3 sets of 8-12 repetition maximum (RM) of 7 different exercises per session. Testing was performed prestudy and poststudy for muscle strength (1RM bench press and back squat), muscle endurance (50% 1RM bench press to failure), and muscle thickness of the elbow flexors, triceps brachii, and quadriceps femoris by ultrasound imaging. Maximal strength was significantly greater for both 1RM squat and bench press for LONG compared to SHORT. Muscle thickness was significantly greater for LONG compared to SHORT in the anterior thigh, and a trend for greater increases was noted in the triceps brachii (p = 0.06) as well.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605807

>german volume training
>10x10
this is quite extreme for someone doing 3x5 for years now

am i supposed to use 20% of my 1rm or something?

Are you fucking kidding me?
Those are 5 rep maxes, right? I've been lifting for a little over a year and already do 1x70kg on overhead press and 1x105kg on bench. Same height and weigh 75kg around 16%. 175cm is 5'9 not 5'7.

Anyways, I don't have as much experience but you can look at some success stories like dude in pic related. Did SL5x5 for 3 months did a PHUL for 3 months, switched to PHAT for 4 months and finally started a 6 day PPL split. Whole story here: reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/4ajtpp/15_years_of_lifting_never_skipping_a_workout/

>All other RT variables were held constant.
That already throws this out of the window. The overall volume on the study comparing the 90% and 70% group had significantly higher overall volume for the 70% group. Despite this, they made less gains.

That'd be true only if they accounted properly for time between sets but they didn't so it's an improper conclusion.

Good thing I'm vain as fuck then

If anything that only shows how important rest between sets is.

>You're uneducated and trying to use a poorly designed study
If it's poorly designed then so are all the studies because you don't find much better individually than this.

Furthermore, the more you call into question such a study, instead of highlighting its flaws, all it does is exemplify how little there is to "strength training". If strength training were so great you wouldn't need to try and pick tiny little flaws with a study, the evidence would speak for itself.

I said before, for the sake of argument, even if you concede strength rep range training is superior, it's not by much and there are no valid studies showing massive gains compared to high volume training. If there were it'd be obvious but it's obviously not the case.

So again, why should I strength train when
1. high volume training makea good strength gains
2. high volume training is much safer

>topknot
>reddit

Ok so how should I train instead

Uncle Adolf's program seems to be promising.

but he does some of the most batshit insane high rep training i've ever seen. you could easily argue his strength is a result of it.