Platinum Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Ultrasonic

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/05/1979

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. Training split is a factor here. They could work with an upper/lower but aren't suited to a push/pull upper body split. I'm inclined to agree with Starz that there are probably better exercises but I've never tried them.
  2. I think to reduce something overdevelopped from training, you'd train it less, or possibly not at all.
  3. Looks like muscle to me rather than anything to do with the spine. Definitely unusual development though.
  4. As I tried to explain above there are reasons for powerlifters to focus on lower rep sets and for people interested in size to do more high rep work. What is taking longer to change are people who hold views that low reps is only for strength and that higher reps is only for size. Where research has moved on recently is in the area of quite how high rep you can go whilst still stimulating good growth.
  5. I don't disagree with any of that. We may have got our wires crossed somewhere. I posted a suggestion to increase from 5 rep sets to a minimum of 8, which you appeared to be disagreeing with by posting a study advocating lower rep sets for strength gains and advocating Madcows. There was then definitely some confusion over the strength/size relationship that hopefully I've now cleared up. Anyway, rich isn't just interested in size so it's somewhat moot .
  6. Diet is key... Personally I'd go with the stair machine or exercise bike if you want to do long periods of low intensity cardio to burn extra calories. More intense exercise with the prowler (HIIT style) would likely be better for improving CV fitness though.
  7. This is perhaps worth responding to directly. Any training that increases muscle fibre size increases strength across all rep ranges, but it does not optimally improve 1RM strength as it doesn't improve the neurological aspects that also contribute to 1RM performance. It is 1RM strength that I have zero interest in, but I do appreciate having more strength for the repeated lifts more relevant to day-to-day life.
  8. OK. I hadn’t expected what I posted in this thread to be the least bit controversial but apparently I was wrong! Let’s see if I can explain where I’m coming from rather better, which I’ll do in two parts. I hope this helps rather than confuses things further... STRENGTH ISN’T ONLY ABOUT SIZE First let me address the aspects of 1RM strength that do not relate to muscle size: 1) 1RM strength depends not just on muscle fibre recruitment (which maxes out at lighter weights) but also neurological rate-coding. This is where nerve impulses are sent more rapidly to increase the strength of the contraction. 2) There is a significant skill aspect to completing a 1RM. This is essentially neurological as well, and relates to how well somebody is able to recreate a particular movement pattern under heavy load. 3) I suspect there is also a psychological aspect of actually being able to make yourself put forth your true maximum effort. Now the point is that training induced adaptations that improve these elements improve strength but do not increase muscle size. Muscle hypertrophy will almost certainly happen as well but crucially it is not the only factor in increasing strength. The point of all of this is that it is flawed logic to look for papers that conclude what is best for 1RM strength and then inferring that the same must also therefore be best for gaining size. This was the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread. It could of course be that what is best for strength gains is also best for size gains, but it needs to be assessed separately, which I’ll discuss below. WHAT IS BEST FOR SIZE THEN? (The two are inter-related but I'll try to break this down by focusing on reps first and then moving onto volume/total sets.) In terms of reps per set there is increasing evidence that it doesn’t really matter. (The 'progressive overload is all you need to worry about' argument if you like.) Here’s one paper showing that the growth from 7x3 (sets x reps) isn’t significantly different to 3 x 10: https://bretcontreras.com/wp-content/uploads/Effects-of-different-volume-equated-resistance-training-loading-strategies-on-muscular-adaptations-in-well-trained-men.pdf And below is another comparing 3 x 8-12 to 3 x 20-25, where all sets were taken to failure. Again, no significant difference was seen in size gains. http://jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129.long Combined that's sets of 3 to 25 reps all being capable of producing similar growth. For people who are primarily interested in size I therefore now feel there is an argument to avoid low rep training, since it apparently offers no growth advantage but does have an increased injury risk. (You do still get strength gains from higher rep training of course (bigger muscles are stronger), but it's not optimised in terms of 1RM performance as I discussed above.) Playing devil's advocate there is one reasonable objection to the above argument though. All studies are of limited duration, and so it can always be challenged whether the results they show would continue long term. There isn't really a good research based way to address this shortcoming, and so we're reduced to a combination of hypothesising whether there's reason to believe things would be different long term, and discussing what people's longer term experiences actually are. Everyone has to make up their own mind on this, but my personal take on it is while I'm still making progress using higher rep training, I'll stick with it. [This paper that @swole troll posted earlier in this thread and quoted strength related conclusions from does actually also look at size effects. I hadn't seen this study before and it does potentially provide additional information. Looking at it quickly I'll be honest that I've yet to get my head around the numbers presented, since there doesn't appear to be simple before/after data. The arm size data in the abstract also suggests that a number of people got smaller muscles from training!] Finally let's move onto the volume argument. The 7x3 vs 3x10 paper I linked to above was deliberately set up to try to match volume (sets x reps x weight) between the two groups - that's why it wasn't say 3x3 vs 3x10. This is because it is thought that volume is a significant factor in determining hypertrophy (more volume = more growth) which they therefore wanted to control for. Have a read of the paper for more discussion on this. Eric Helms refers to exactly the same principle in the video that @swole troll posted above. (The video also raises the issue of non-muscle fibre related growth but that's a whole other debate!) A crucial idea that comes out of the 7x3 vs 3x10 is that whilst you can get the same growth doing lots of low rep sets, it takes a lot longer. It is also likely to be more fatiguing for the CNS (which could limit training frequency), and there is also the injury risk argument. Most would also typically do more than 3 sets if they were doing higher rep sets, meaning that greater volume would be achieved. A related piece of evidence for the volume argument is the following meta-analysis, which looked at total sets per week and provides evidence that broadly more sets is better: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brad_Schoenfeld/publication/305455324_Dose-response_relationship_between_weekly_resistance_training_volume_and_increases_in_muscle_mass_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis/links/57921c1d08ae33e89f74ef0c.pdf And for the really keen here is a letter challenging it, and the original author's reply (backing up their original position): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paulo_Gentil/publication/309673355_Reliability_of_meta-analyses_to_evaluate_resistance_training_programmes/links/581c96d308aea429b291d976.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brad_Schoenfeld/publication/309642510_The_dose-response_relationship_between_resistance_training_volume_and_muscle_hypertrophy_are_there_really_still_any_doubts/links/581b369b08aeccc08aea44cc.pdf Now I am absolutely NOT saying that volume is the only thing that matters, or that the evidence suggests that it is. There are a HUGE number of inter-related factors here, that I'd suggest no-one fully understands. I hope I've managed to prove there is some evidence base and logic behind my earlier comments in this thread though.
  9. Well actually a guy in a short skirt would be distracting too, but for rather different reasons!
  10. Actually I mis-remembered Lyle's recommendation - the following is from this link. (It's more complicated than I thought though, and I do not count how many times I urinate each day!) Water Intake While it should be a no-brainer, water intake is another place where trainees make basic mistakes (I am guilty of this myself). The effects of dehydration range from minimal (at 2% dehydration, strength and performance decrease) to painful (can anybody say kidney stones) to worse (at 10% dehydration, death can occur). While there are many generalized water intake equations (such as 8 glasses per day), these may not be correct for everyone. To poach another guideline from my mentor, a good rule of thumb is 5 clear urinations per day, and 2 of those should come after your workout. Yes, that means looking in the toilet when you pee. This gives trainees a way of individualizing water intake. Obviously someone who lives in a hot, humid environment (or trains in a non-air conditioned gym) will need more water than someone who lives in moderate temperatures and trains in a posh gym. I’d note that, despite more dogmatic rhetoric to the contrary, all fluids contribute to hydration state (as do many high-water foods such as fruits and vegetables). Yes, even caffeinated ones; research clearly shows that the small amount of fluid lost from the caffeine is still much less than the amount gained by drinking the drink. It’s worth nothing that recent research has found that plain water is actually the worst drink for rehydration following exercise. Milk was actually shown to be superior to either plain water or Powerade/Gatorade type drinks, most likely due to the potassium and sodium content. You can read more about this in the artilce Milk as an Effective Post-Exercise Rehydration Drink. Finally, thirst is a poor indicator of hydration state. By the time you’re thirsty, you’re already a bit dehydrated.
  11. I work in a hospital where the uniforms appear to be wilfully unflattering, I assume to minimise issues. Not that this stops all patients behaving inappropriately of course. Have to admit that I'd be seriously distracted by a therapist wearing a very short skirt though...
  12. I think people are unfairly dismissing the usefulness of thirst in this thread. What I said above was to drink enough that you don't GET thirsty, not to wait until you are thirsty and then drink. Big difference. The following may be of interest to some, although the acknowledgement in it that Lyle McDonald's reccommendation relating to 3 (IIRC) clear urination per day being a good enough guide falls into the 'don't over think this' category for me. https://sigmanutrition.com/episode153/
  13. I refer to Eric Helms on this forum regularly and have watched the video you've linked to at least once in the past, and that from memory I don't disagree with any of it (not going to open it at work). Please understand I've never suggested you can't gain size with 5 rep sets, and let me reply properly before trying to continue this duscussion.
  14. No. It's not alcohol free and it's idiotic.
  15. Don't quite follow that but I suspect the answer is no. Let me reply in more detail to this thread over the weekend - there are lots of issues in this thread that I need to try to address properly.