A good "bodybuilding" routine SHOULD get you stronger while maximizing LBM gains.
may sound like a dumb question... But at what intensity do you train at for bodybuilding/hybrid routines? More curious on percentages based on set progression i.e. 1st set at 75%, 2nd set at 85%, 3rd set at 95%?
Whatever rep range you are working in the weight needs to be extremely challenging with good technique.
But I'm also curious with OFF Road's post. Granted I'm new to this whole training concept so don't tear me apart :hello:
I'm not saying that all you do is lift with higher reps and do a bunch of exercises. Proper program progression, surfing the strength curve, and getting away from single plane exercises is the key to growth long term and it helps with metabolic conditioning as well as keeping your body from becoming imbalanced.
Nothing is black and white.
It can be confusing when you first hear about what I discuss, but just keep an open mind and realize that tere are many ways of doing things more efficiently for long term results.
So in this case would the benefit of doing some strength training first be that you could build up a strength base so that when you move on to doing a hypertrophy routine you can handle more weight to get better size gains?
If you have 2 identical people that start out being able to bench 225 for a 1RM and they take the following approaches over a 2 year period.
1) Person A does 2 years of hypertrophy training. Given a 1RM of 225 he can probably start out doing doing sets of 10 with around 175 lbs.
2) Person B does 1 year of strength training and increases his 1RM to 365. Then does 1 year of hypertrophy training. Given a new 1RM of 365 he can probably start out doing doing sets of 10 with around 275 lbs.
It seems like the approach of Person B would be better. Once you spend some time building up a strength base then you can perform a hypertrophy routine with heavier weights compared to if you had just started doing a hypertrophy routine from the beginning. Presumably this would result in better size gains since you'd be performing the same hypertrophy routine with the benefit of using heavier weights from the strength you added by doing a strength routine for a while first. All of this is obviously assuming both people have a proper diet in place.
Does that all sound correct?
^ lol person B is what im trying to do, but very good point.
If a trainee is able to gain 140 lbs on their 1RM over the course of a year with a strength-focused program, then that individual is still going to make considerable strength gains regardless of their program.
Let's say that beacause 'bodybuilder' was not focusing on strength at the end of year one his 10RM is 245-255 lbs as opposed to the 'strength' trainee who has a 10RM of 275 lbs. The 'bodybuilder' should have a noteable jump start in terms of hypertrophy since he has been working with high volume for quite some time.
At the end of two years they may actually be at the same point in terms of 10RM strength since 'strength' trainee is now adapting to a new program. Chances are that 'bodybuilder' would have substantially more size at that point as well, although both could make good gains.
Now here is the interesting part. What if this individual does not have good genetics for strength gain? Then perhaps a program where strength is the primary focus will produce better results because they simply would not make gains otherwise.
It is an endless debate and really I think that it depends on the individual. I have seen people follow programs that make no sense and make great gains, while others do everything right and their gains are very slow. Maybe this means that a 'hybrid' program is best (one that incorporates 'strength-focused' training coupled with volume and isolation work).
There is no be all end all best program and having a program customized to fit the individual is key and making proper changes from one program to the next over time produces results. It doesn't always have to be just one way. You need to focus on the bigger picture as well and not just the now.
I agree that 4-6 days a week is what is needed to get bigger and stronger. I have done this for most of my 8 training years. Personally, I hate 3 days a week not because it is ineffective but because I want to train more. Most of the bodybuilders I know train each muscle once a week with a 5-6 day split and it works for them. They are using mostly compound lifts too. A lot of people sell themselves short and dont train more than 2-3x a week and say they can not recover but many are just lazy or do not have the time etc etc. I have trained as many as 6 days a week and recovered fine (naturally of course) I just had to adjust the volume each day. The best program anyone can do is one that they can stick too. If you really can not train 5x a week then make a program for the amount of days you can.
Despite some variability in strength potential, growth potential, metabolic rate, predisposition to disease and so on, we are all physiologically very similar. Excessive polymorphism is a nuisance, sure everyone's a special little flower but every able bodied healthy human is pretty much identical and respond identically to stressors (of which weight training is one).
Perhaps in isolation the differences seem huge, ie my biceps attach quite high on the humerous, a colleague's right at the elbow, overall my arm is bigger, a higher peak, his looks fuller, and when I was younger/had less confidence in my knowledge I would have adopted his routine to change things but from a more holistic perspective these differences are tiny.
Within a fairly small set of parameters/principles everyone's muscles will grow in response to the applied stimulus.
As acress points out and maybe this is where some of the confusion lies it is not necessarily the weight but rather the internal tension it imposes on a muscle and its duration that is important.
There is a minimum weight threshold needed or rather a minimum tension that needs to be applied to a muscle for a minimum amount of time before it will adapt (the rep and the set and the cumulative load and time per workout).
As a percentage that'll be about the same for everyone between 60 and 90% 1RM (with occasional forays above and below), which puts the rep range between 3 and 20 give or take. Which if you look at it, is quite a big range of weights and reps to play with.
The stimulus for muscular growth is dose dependant, it is not digital, not on/off.
Too little is not enough too much is, well, too much. Anywhere between 2 and 5 sets at the working weight. For anyone interested check out Wernborne, Rhea, Kruger et al for meta analysis and studies on all this.
I appreciate lifters have been doing this a long time before science studied it and the role of science at least in this field is to formalise what we've known works but known fact has to be the reference point.
With regards frequency stimulating the target muscle every 5 days to 2x per week is optimal, how that pans out in terms of days per week depends on how you've split the target muscles/bodyparts, how many bodyparts you feel you can do justice to per session and so on. You can hit a muscle on average every 5 days with an ABA split or on a more detailed split.
Point is as long as a trainee is within the parameters and working hard consitently any permutation within these rules will work.
Well now say that a lifter is a begginer but knows the lifts and such but not so strong. Could Lifter still be able to get big with the said ^ workout??
Is this a good "mix" routine?
Back and Legs
3x10 Dumbbell Rows
3x5 Barbell Bench Press
3x10 Dumbbell Incline Press
Shoulders and Arms
3x5 Military Press
3x10 Dumbbell Curls
3x10 Dumbbell Lateral Raises