Some guidelines

[Fausto]

I really like this, from Will Brink's website:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">From all the studies they examined, they concluded:

• Training with a mean intensity of 60% of one repetition maximum (1RM) elicits the best gains in untrained individuals.

• Training with 80% of 1RM is most effective in those who are already trained (i.e. are not new to weight training).

• Untrained participants experience optimal gains by training each muscle group 3 days per week.

• Trained individuals get their best responses training each muscle group 2 days per week.

• Four sets per muscle group elicited the maximal gains in both trained and untrained individuals.</div>

And here's the link, this of course is only a extract:

Will Brink's Free Bodybuilding Success Series

 

[Old and Grey]

Fausto, good advice although I use less then 80% of my max as I train in 12 and 8 rep ranges. I train principally for hypertrophy and not just strength.

Question: Does he specify if that is 4 sets of one exercise, one set of 4 different exercises or something in between?

 

[Joe.Muscle]

Thanks Fausto for the summary!

Its looks spot on with a lot of the other suggestions out there!

 

[Fausto]

O&amp;G

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Fausto, good advice although I use less then 80% of my max as I train in 12 and 8 rep ranges. I train principally for hypertrophy and not just strength.

Question: Does he specify if that is 4 sets of one exercise, one set of 4 different exercises or something in between?</div>

Guidelines are just that! You are allowed to use your variations, as this came from research that seemed to be what was giving the best results overall, when we analyze these things we always get a standard deviation, this is where you'd fit in!

I did not read the whole article as I was leaving work when I posted this but I am quite sure that once again this is left up to you to choose, my opinion is that for some body parts I'd rather use the same exercise, whereas for others I'd mix and match!

 

[dkm1987]

And it wasn't a meta on hypertrophy it was strength training. The effect sizes measured were measurments of strength increases not size increases. To use it as an empirical guide to bodybuilding,

 

[Old and Grey]

Ergo the 80% reference.

 

[Fausto]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And it wasn't a meta on hypertrophy it was strength training.</div>

Point taken, Dan. But without wanting to be a purist, strength to the best of my knowledge is not usually done using the 80%, this falls more towards the hypertrophy range, doesn't it?

I can see why you may be pissed at using the wrong research and stating one thing instead of another but...IMO, strength ranges have higher sets and lower reps...but then agin that is my own opinion, and it does not necessarily reflect the generic HST opinion!

 

[Old and Grey]

I am not a research person but it seems to me, to a great degree, you can't have one without the other although it is possible to prioritize one over the other. The quote, perhaps by happenstance, is probably a good middle-of-the-road approach even though it only measured strength. It seems to go along with the anecdotal evidence I have collected over many decades. In other words, the conclusion inferred may be right but for the wrong reasons.  Or, put more simply, I have no idea of what I speak.  

 

[Joe.Muscle]

IMO...you are better off getting stronger in the 6-12 rep range....unless of course your goal is to be a power lifter.

The reason I say this is because at some point you need more muscle to get stronger.

We tend to always look at the side of research and say well you have to get stronger to get bigger which obviously is true.

But the STRONG guys are also know to use hypertrohy training to get bigger so they then can get stronger.

So what I get from what little bit of science I somewhat understand...is if your goal is strictly to get bigger then do like Old and Grey does ...use a hypertrophy range of reps lets say thats 5-12 rep range and then add weight to the bar.

Which is precisely what Bryan has trick us all into doing over the years

 

[dkm1987]

<div>
(Fausto @ Jun. 21 2009,4:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And it wasn't a meta on hypertrophy it was strength training.</div>

Point taken, Dan. But without wanting to be a purist, strength to the best of my knowledge is not usually done using the 80%, this falls more towards the hypertrophy range, doesn't it?

I can see why you may be pissed at using the wrong research and stating one thing instead of another but...IMO, strength ranges have higher sets and lower reps...but then agin that is my own opinion, and it does not necessarily reflect the generic HST opinion!

</div>
Both metas used mean intensities. Which no way implies the actual study used that intensity exclusively.

Their followup in 05 even added

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. </div>

You would need to pull up all studies used, 177, and see what variables were used in each.


Pissed? Not hardly. Just pointing out it's true relevance.

 

[Fausto]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Pissed? Not hardly. Just pointing out it's true relevance. </div>

True enough! Got it!

 

[MicroBerto]

<div>
(Fausto @ Jun. 19 2009,10:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I really like this, from Will Brink's website:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">From all the studies they examined, they concluded:
• Four sets per muscle group elicited the maximal gains in both trained and untrained individuals.</div></div>
I really like this. When I spice things up between cycles and do a 5x5 program, that 5th set is usually miserable (and gets boring) for me. If I do 4x5, I can then incorporate more exercises and still get these maximal gains.

Of course everyone is different so I'm going to give it a shot next time I bounce from HST to something else.

 

[Wildman]

<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Jun. 21 2009,6:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">IMO...you are better off getting stronger in the 6-12 rep range....unless of course your goal is to be a power lifter.

The reason I say this is because at some point you need more muscle to get stronger.

We tend to always  look at the side of research and say well you have to get stronger to get bigger which obviously is true.

But the STRONG guys are also know to use hypertrohy training to get bigger so they then can get stronger.

So what I get from what little bit of science I somewhat understand...is if your goal is strictly to get bigger then do like Old and Grey does ...use a hypertrophy range of reps lets say thats 5-12 rep range and then add weight to the bar.

Which is precisely what Bryan has trick us all into doing over the years

</div>
Good posts all of you. I like one of the things especially that Joe had to say.

&quot;The reason I say this is because at some point you need more muscle to get stronger.&quot;

I whole heartedly believe this to be true. I remember stalling out on my powerlifting years ago. My change was to do more for hypertrophy and my progress started again like magic. At this point I started my cycle approach, alternating hypertrophy work with strength work. Peaking the strength work near my meets. Worked well for me.

 

[RUSS]

Once every 21 days I lift my copy of Mike Mentzers &quot;HEAVY DUTY&quot; from off the bookshelf and briefly but intensely turn no more than three pages with each hand - I'm worried that I may be overtraining though ...

 

[Fausto]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Once every 21 days I lift my copy of Mike Mentzers &quot;HEAVY DUTY&quot; from off the bookshelf and briefly but intensely turn no more than three pages with each hand - I'm worried that I may be overtraining though ... </div>

Excellent Russ!