Page 50 of 59 FirstFirst ... 404849505152 ... LastLast
Results 1,226 to 1,250 of 1472

Thread: MonStar's FINAL Journal

  1. #1226
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by rookiebldr
    Nice curling MonStar. 155! Just keep breaking those personal bests.

    jt
    Thanks a lot rookiebldr. Appreciate it man. Yeah my curling strength has consistently been increasing. I remember just a month or two ago curling 135 for the first time for a single or double I dont even remember and I was DAMN impressed with my strength. Now I am doing 155 x 1. Crazy sh*t isnt it?

  2. #1227
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by Big-Ron
    Dont worry about not making headway in the workout, even the best of us have off days.

    but be proud of your bb curls thats sweet! how come you do wide under-hand grip chins? do you find them more beneficial?

    Have you got any pics of your g/f? ive been imagining what she looks like for a while now but still in the dark.

    Keep it up

    BR
    Thanks a lot BR, appreciate it man. Yeah I know that even the best of us have our off days. That totally makes sense to me, as it is very very true. Yeah my BB curls were good I guess. I wish my back strength would shoot up though. My girlfriend commented on my arm size today that felt good. She was like "your arms seriously keep looking bigger to me."

    I do wide-grip underhand chins because they put my biceps in their strongest position - causing my lats to fail first, rather than my biceps. This really helps put all of the tension on my lats and really lats me get some great contraction. In my opinion curl-grip chins blow away regular overhand chins. Just my personal preference though.

    Hehe nah I dont have any pictures of my girlfriend up here at WBB. I want to but I dont think she does. Shes gorgeous though man. Brunette with pretty blue eyes and a great body. Sexy as anything man, trust me.

  3. #1228
    WBB OG Silverback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,089
    originally posted by Monstar

    I dont have any pictures of my girlfriend up here at WBB. I want to but I dont think she does. Shes gorgeous though man.
    Thats fair enough i can understand that. How long have you been together? later BR
    The only limits are the one's you place on yourself...

  4. #1229
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by Big-Ron
    Thats fair enough i can understand that. How long have you been together? later BR
    We will have been together 2 years on November 20, this year. Thats going to be so much friggin' fun, I cant wait. 2 years is really really long time for only being 18-19 years old I think. That comes out to something like 1/9th or our lives we spend together. I know that sounds dumb but thats honestly a long time man.

  5. #1230
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093


    DAY 89 | 10-6-2002


    Comments.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Feel good today I think for the most part. Woke up feeling very very drowsy this morning but oh well. Nothing that is too big of a deal. I dont workout today, or have school, or work. So today is basically and all around rest day for me, which I need. I am glad that I am getting a break from everything it really makes things better for me. Today I am just going to sit around with my girlfriend, maybe go the library, etc.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Diet/Supplements.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Meal 1: Myoplex MRP + 2% milk, multi-vitamin/mineral, 1g vitamin C, 400 IU vitamin E, 1 Vasopro, 1 Xenadrine EFX

      Meal 2: 1 Burger King 5-piece chicken tender, 1 Burger King onion ring, 1 Burger King hershey pie, 1g vitamin C, 400 IU vitamin E

      Meal 3: 3 Taco Bell supreme beef gorditas, multi-vitamin/mineral, 1g vitamin C, 400 IU vitamin E, 1 Vasopro, 1 Xenadrine EFX

      Meal 4: 1 quart skim milk, choclate cookies, Swedish fish candy

      Good amount of food today---not a lot of meals. Didnt have much time to eat today. I was at the library trying to work on some dumb paper. Oh well. Enough calories.

      Estimated calories: ~3000

      Decent amount of calories today. Like always I am trying to stick to around ~3000 every day. Looking forward to a good workout tomorrow morning.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Pain/Soreness.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      I am not that sore today surprisingly. I expected my lats to be sore as sh*t. Theyre a litte bit sore but nothing too bad. I dont really understand whats up with my back. It rarely gets sore anymore. I know that really doesnt mean anything but its a little wierd to me. My lats have always gotten sore after a tough back workout. As long as I can remember at least. Oh well. Biceps are a little sore too.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Sleep.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Last night I got 9 hours sleep. Damn I needed this. Slept straight through as well, I didnt wake up at all during the night. Hopefully this kind of sleep will help bust my through some of my plateaus. I dont know well see what happens. Tomorrow morning I have heavy BTN presses so hopefully Ill do okay with them.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Training. Rest.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      N/A.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Training Length.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      N/A.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Weight.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      First thing in the morning, without clothes, after using the restroom, I weighed 200 lbs. Good weight actually, I was happy. I have been steadily going a down little by little in weight on the scale which is a good thing in my eyes. Need to keep it up. I have really really been enjoying the way that I am eating so it makes things so much easier. No binging and then feeling horrible, etc.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by MonStar; 10-06-2002 at 10:34 PM.

  6. #1231
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    After some PMs with chris mason I am thinking about maybe making a few adjustments to my training. First of all I am going alter my rep range in my 2nd set. I am not yet sure what I am going to make it - but at this point I know that I am not going to do the 12-20 rep range. I am currently awaiting a PM from chris mason with some info about this. I am trying to figure out if I am better off training more slowly and deliberately (with a bit lighter weight) for hypertrophy, or more quicky and explosively during my 2nd workset.

  7. #1232
    Jack's Utter Surprise Saturday Fever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chico
    Posts
    3,691
    Just a suggestion here. You're always keyed on "what will work better or best" it seems, and never on "what is working." Look back at your journal. Specifically, look at your progress and look at how many times you've made changes to your routine.

    I think you'll notice that you've changed your routine a lot, but you've progressed regularly. So perhaps the general idea that you could accept is that there is no "magic routine", or "rep scheme" or the like. Instead, accept that the best you can do, as a bodybuilder, is be consistent, work hard, and stay dedicated. I don't think anything chris or PowerMan or Belial or even myself can tell you is going to make your bodybuilding gains any faster.

    Just food for thought. You sound like me, it's half the fun to try new things, and I'm not trying to discourage it, just wanted to add an outside perspective to things.

  8. #1233
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by Saturday Fever
    Just a suggestion here. You're always keyed on "what will work better or best" it seems, and never on "what is working." Look back at your journal. Specifically, look at your progress and look at how many times you've made changes to your routine.
    Good post SF. Yeah I am always focusing on what will make my gains in the gym faster, etc. I think thats why I am constantly changing my training routine and rep scheme trying to find an ideal training routine. I think that I am better off just taking the advice of a bodybuilding veteran rather than changing it up all the time. Youre right though man throughout my journal what has really worked is consistency, more than anything.

    I think you'll notice that you've changed your routine a lot, but you've progressed regularly. So perhaps the general idea that you could accept is that there is no "magic routine", or "rep scheme" or the like. Instead, accept that the best you can do, as a bodybuilder, is be consistent, work hard, and stay dedicated. I don't think anything chris or PowerMan or Belial or even myself can tell you is going to make your bodybuilding gains any faster.
    Dedication + consistency = results if you ask me. Thats always been the formula. Obviously other things play a key factor like rest and recovery, and ample calories, etc. But the bottom line is consistent hard training. Yeah maybe youre right. Unless I am training completely wrong (which I dont think I am)---then there probably isnt much that yourself, Belial, PowerMan, or chris can do. I do think that you all can offer insight however. I feel that chris, being a 14 year veteran of the iron game, can tell me exactly what kind of rep range worked best for him for hypertrophy. I think that he can also tell me what kind of rep speed he used when training for hypertrophy. Because for my 2nd set I am pondering not only the exact rep range 6-8, 8-10, or 10-12---but also the TUT. I cant decide if more smooth and controlled is better for hypertrophy or more ballistic and explosive is.

    Just food for thought. You sound like me, it's half the fun to try new things, and I'm not trying to discourage it, just wanted to add an outside perspective to things.
    Yeah I know SF haha. Thats part of the fun in bodybuilding. Trying different things etc. I think most experienced lifters know that too. I its a well known fact that squats are the best lower body (and some people take it as far as total body) exercise. But after years and years of squatting lifters begin to get sick of squatting and want to move onto other exercises like leg presses and hack squats, etc. Sticking to the basics is one of the most important things if you ask me.

  9. #1234
    King Nothing ericg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    6,196
    Nice work on the chins man! Someday I will be there! Awesome work overall.
    Current Stats --------------- Training Goals: Improve athletic conditioning.
    Squat - 305lbs - 1/23/06 ----- 335
    Deadlift - 415lbs - 2/4/06 ---- 435
    Bench - 90s*7 ----------------- 100s*5
    Weight - 208 ------------------ 190
    Height - 5'10"

    My Journal|My Routine|My FitDay
    WBBB|"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up" - Thomas Edison

  10. #1235
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by ericg
    Nice work on the chins man! Someday I will be there! Awesome work overall.
    Thanks a lot ericg, appreciate it man. Yeah I dont know yet. I feel like I am sort of hitting a bit of a rut at +100 x 1.5. I know thats nothing to be ashamed of but I just feel like I am going to be stuck there for a while. In other words I dont see myself hitting +135 x 2, my goal for 2003, anytime soon. Hopefully by the end of October Ill be closer to it than I am now though. Well see.

  11. #1236
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    I am not sure why, but for some reason I neglected to post my most recent progress picture here in my journal.

    I am 199 lbs. in this picture. It was taken about a week ago.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  12. #1237
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    I also wanted to add one more image to my journal. This is the support row apparatus that I use at my gym. Its the only exercise in my journal that I feel maybe unclear to some of my readers. So I am just posting this picture to clarify. The apparatus itself is 30 lbs. And I use an underhand grip as most of you already know.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  13. #1238
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093


    DAY 90 | 10-7-2002


    Comments.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Have to spend today writing an essay about psychology and how its involved in my life interest. That really sounds like a lot of fun. It only has to be around 1-2 pages long so I am not too worried about getting it done. I am more concerned with the quality of my work thats all. Hopefully Ill do good on this essay, well see how things go. I dont have school or work again today! Thats 2 days off in a row for me, jeez. Crazy sh*t.

      I PMed the training guru, chris mason, about my 2nd workset and he responded with the following. Excellent info here:

      Originally in a PM by chris mason
      Very low reps do seem to have a predominant effect on the nervous system, and not so much on a size adaptation. However, I can think of an exception, a natural and very large exception, Doug Hepburn. He performed reps of 5 or less per set. He did, however, perform quite high volume. He was 5'9" (I believe) and 275+ lbs. He had a lot of muscular hypertrophy. Now, can I think of a low volume, low rep trainee? I am not sure. I can say this much, volume is not a requisite for size (at least when steroids are involved), as Mike Menzter, Ray M, and Dorian Yates prove. High reps are not a requisite for size as Doug proves. A combination of either seems be required, but I tend to think that the volume still can be quite low, just not 1-2 sets per bodypart. I will say from personal experience that I feel I grow best when I incorporate reps of more than 2-3 into my workouts. For me, adding a couple of sets per bodypart with 5+ reps seems to work best (added to my first low rep set). There is something to be said for the pump and growth. If you think about it, the pump occurs because the muscle contracting temporarily cuts off blood flow during a set. That is why higher reps and volume create greater pumps. Thus, if there is a connection between muscular work performed and size, and there seems to be, then the pump also has a correlation. There is a threshold, and I don't know what it is. Let's get back to Dorian Yates, he performed roughly 3-4 sets per bodypart using 5-10 reps per set, so on the low end, we can say that 15 reps performed with a high percentage of one's maximum ability is enough to stimulate a lot of hypertrophy (is it the low-end cutoff?--- I don't know). So, 2 sets of 3 reps wont cut it. However, 3 sets of 2-3 reps on the 1st set, and 5-6 on the next 2 should pretty much do it. Or 2 sets with 2-3 on the 1st and 11-12 on the 2nd should do it.
      Some really really good info here if you ask me. I am going to be keeping my 1st workset in the 2-4 rep range, and my 2nd workset in the 6-8 rep range. This was Ill cover the neural adaptation---along with the hypertrophy.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Diet/Supplements.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Preworkout: 1 banana, 1/2 apple, multi-vitamin/mineral, 1g vitamin C, 400 IU vitamin E, 5cc Liquid Clenbutrx

      During Workout: 20 oz. Gatorade + 5g creatine + 5g glutamine + 1/2 tsp. salt

      Postworkout: 1/2 serving Cell-Tech + 500 mg. ALA, 1 serving whey protein

      Meal 4: 2 Taco Bell supreme beef gorditas, 1g vitamin C, 400 IU vitamin E

      Meal 5: 1 Burger King cheeseburger, 1 Butterfinger bar, multi-vitamin/mineral, 1g vitamin C, 400 IU vitamin E, 1 Vasopro, 1 Xenadrine EFX

      Meal 6: 1 McDonald's cheeseburger, 1 McDonald's 4-piece chicken nugget, 1 McDonald's apple pie

      Meal 7: choclate pudding

      Good amount of food today I think. I am actually not 100% positive on how accurate my estimation is today. I think its a bit more off than usual, oh well.

      Estimated calories: ~3200

      Again I am not completely positive as to how accurate my estimation is today---oh well.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Pain/Soreness.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Feel pretty damn good today. Not real sore at all to be honest. Little bit of muscle stiffness here and there but overall I feel damn good. Looking forward to an excellent delt session this morning. I dont know hot great Ill do with 195 lbs. Hopefully Ill get it for a single or double. Well see what happens.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Sleep.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Last night I got 7.5 hours of sleep. Honestly slept well considering. Went to bed rather late. Deep sleep last night. Really need to get this kind of sleep every single night. Thats the kind of sleep that I enjoy.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Training. Delts, Traps, Abs.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Seated Behind-neck Barbell Presses:

      95 x 6, 135 x 3, 155 x 2, 195 x 1.5 (!), 145 x 7

      AWESOME sets of BTN presses today. Really hit my delts extremely hard. I honestly feel very very strong in this exercise. Considering that I am doing flat BB presses and BTN presses within like 2 days of each other I am surprised at how well my rotator cuffs and all that are doing. I feel strong in both movements. Maybe its just the low-volume, who knows. Anyways easy warmups to start. 95 for 6, 135 for a triple, and 155 for a double. All just going through the motions. Trying to warm my shoulders and rotator cuffs up completely before my heavy set. Jumped up to 195 lbs. Got 1.5 reps baby!! New PB! Good set. Spotter helped me finish up rep 2. Got the first rep without much of a struggle but the strength wasnt there for the 2nd rep unfortunately. A lift-off really helps a lot I think. I am going to get a lift-off for my flat BB presses on Thursday. Anyway dropped to 145 for 7. Nice set. Probably could have gotten 8-9 but I want to keep this workset shy of failure.

      One-arm Dumbbell Side-laterals:

      55 x 7, 55 x 6

      Nice sets of laterals today. Really hit my side delts extremely hard with some excellent form. Crushed my side delts completely. Good contractions, etc. I am up to 7 reps on my first workset which is up a rep from last week. I am hoping to go up 1 rep every single week. Until I get to 10/10 reps with both sets then Ill up my weight to a 60 lbs. DB. Good sets overall though. Really need to be sure to keep my form tight on this movement. I think that's really really important. Both sets were good though. Delts had a nice pump after these sets.

      Dumbbell Shrugs:

      95 x 7, 95 x 6

      Good sets of shrugs today I think. Really got some good hard contractions in my traps. Stretched my traps hard at the bottom of every single rep. Both sets were excellent I think. Grip was kind of a limiting factor in this movement I am not sure why. Maybe because I am not doing and direct grip work, I dont know. Oh well. Hit my traps hard without a doubt.

      Machine Crunches:

      180 x 8, 180 x 8

      Good sets of machine crunches today. Really hit my midsection very very hard. Contractions were definitely excellent. Burn in my abs was also good. Going to keep this weight until I get 10/10 reps on both sets without a problem. Great way to finish off my workout this morning.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Training Length.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Lasted 15 minutes today. Hehe---got in the gym, and got out! For some reason this delt workout barely ever takes me any time at all. More than 20 minutes on my delt/trap/ab day is a real rare thing. Oh well, intensity is there.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Weight.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------
      First thing in the morning, without clothes, after using the restroom, I weighed 200.5 lbs. Good weight this morning! Been hovering closer to 200 lbs. and than 205 lbs.---which is a good thing for me since I am getting stronger and stronger. Its crazy that I can increase my strength while somehow dropping weight on the scale. Doesnt make much sense to me.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by MonStar; 10-11-2002 at 08:41 AM.

  14. #1239
    "Tuna Boy" NateDogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Central, MA
    Posts
    3,376
    Hey Mike,

    Just thought I would drop a line. I am currently doing three working sets, 3-5 reps, 6-8 reps and 8-10 reps. Using heavy weights first (duh). I like it very much so far. We'll see how it goes long term though.
    "damn...can't beat logic like that.
    NAte is exactly right." - Tryska

  15. #1240
    Player Hater PowerManDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    7,850
    I like what Chris wrote. Its right on the money.

    That threshold he's talking about is what's been eluding me for awhile now; the high-load, low-rep work seems to almost have a cumulative effect over multiple sets (a higher set volume) that can equal or even exceed the effect of moderate-load, moderate/high-rep work done for a lower set volume.

    The total training load seems to be the key issue-- for example, assuming a 1RM of 300 in a given lift:

    282x2 (94%), 276 (92%)x3 (2), 270 (90%)x4 (2) = 564 + 1656 + 2160 = 4380; 4 sets, NL = 16

    This yields an Avg Intensity of 273.7, or ~91%

    264 (88%)x6, 246(82%)x8, 234 (78%)x10 = 1584 + 1968 + 2340 = 5892; 3 sets, NL = 24

    Avg Intensity is 245.5, or ~82%

    The difference between the two is quite marked. Both would very likely result in a good degree of hypertrophy. However, I think the second example would result in more, for the simple reason that the total workload is higher (5892 as opposed to 4380). There is the matter that 8 more lifts were performed in the second example, though. If the volume in the first example were increased to allow for 8 more lifts while keeping the average intensity ~91%, you'd probably not find that the case.
    Vin Diesel has a fever.. and the only prescription is more cowbell.

    Budiak: That girl I maced
    Budiak: macked
    Budiak: heh maced
    Budiak: I wish

    ShmrckPmp5: a good thing people can't fire guns through the computer...your ass would have been shot years ago

    Y2A 47: youre smooth as hell
    Y2A 47: thats why you get outta tickets, and into panties

    galileo: you're a fucking beast and I hate you
    galileo: hate

    assgrabbers are never subtile, they will grabb ass whereever they go,public or not, I know the type, because I am one. - Rock

  16. #1241
    WBB OG Silverback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1,089
    sup mike, jeez 15 mins, how much do you pay per session? thats unreal.

    195 bnp x1.5 nuff said

    great workout in such a short space of time, i really like the idea of your low reps/followed by moderate ones. Seems to be a breakthrough.

    A guy at my gym today was doing french presses on a smith and his sholder popped out, he was walking round lob sided and didn't even realise what he had done till he looked in the mirror! with you doing bnp's it made me think of it lol.

    The notes by chris mason are pretty sweet and an interesting read, nice work

    BR
    The only limits are the one's you place on yourself...

  17. #1242
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by NateDogg
    Hey Mike,

    Just thought I would drop a line. I am currently doing three working sets, 3-5 reps, 6-8 reps and 8-10 reps. Using heavy weights first (duh). I like it very much so far. We'll see how it goes long term though.
    I think thats an excellent choice ND. I think that a set in the very low rep range, maybe even the 1-3 rep range---is a good idea. Then another set in the higher rep range, maybe something in the 6-8 rep range, it a good idea. Just my personal opinion. Yeah see what kind of results you get with this vs. 5x5.

  18. #1243
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by PowerManDL
    I like what Chris wrote. Its right on the money.

    That threshold he's talking about is what's been eluding me for awhile now; the high-load, low-rep work seems to almost have a cumulative effect over multiple sets (a higher set volume) that can equal or even exceed the effect of moderate-load, moderate/high-rep work done for a lower set volume.
    Yeah I agree Matt. The very high-load, low-rep work seems to be working great for my strength. I mean the 1-3 rep range is really where you want to be I think if youre training for strength. Obviously its tough to do singles, doubles, and triples with any kind of excessive volume---due to do the stress on your CNS. But I do feel that low-volume, high-load, low-rep work is the way to go for strength.

    The total training load seems to be the key issue-- for example, assuming a 1RM of 300 in a given lift:

    282x2 (94%), 276 (92%)x3 (2), 270 (90%)x4 (2) = 564 + 1656 + 2160 = 4380; 4 sets, NL = 16

    This yields an Avg Intensity of 273.7, or ~91%

    264 (88%)x6, 246(82%)x8, 234 (78%)x10 = 1584 + 1968 + 2340 = 5892; 3 sets, NL = 24

    Avg Intensity is 245.5, or ~82%
    Okay let me see if I can figure out what the heck you just did, lol. You started off with 282x2, which is 94% of the 300 1RM. Understood. Where did you get the 4 and the 16, sorry you lost me man. Point is well taken though Matt. That low reps generally has a higher average intensity than high reps.

    The difference between the two is quite marked. Both would very likely result in a good degree of hypertrophy. However, I think the second example would result in more, for the simple reason that the total workload is higher (5892 as opposed to 4380). There is the matter that 8 more lifts were performed in the second example, though. If the volume in the first example were increased to allow for 8 more lifts while keeping the average intensity ~91%, you'd probably not find that the case.
    I agree. I feel that both of these would result in hypertrophy. To sum up what you said I am going to give 2 examples that make it a bit easier to understand.

    Example A.
    295 x 1, 285 x 2, 275 x 3

    Example B.
    215 x 12, 205 x 10, 195 x 8

    Obviously the both of these, if proper progression and diet was employed correctly---would result in hypertrophy. I agree that Example A would result in more strength gained, and less hypertrophy. And Example B would result in more hypertrophy, and less strength.

    With your example youre increasing the volume in the 2nd example but even if the volume is not increased, I feel that the result will still be the same. Rep scheme and load does play a very very large factor. It seems to change the given results but I am curious as to how much. If the volume is constant, how much more hypertrophy would be achieved in Example B vs. Example A? And how much more strength?
    Last edited by MonStar; 10-07-2002 at 04:15 PM.

  19. #1244
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by Big-Ron
    sup mike, jeez 15 mins, how much do you pay per session? thats unreal.
    How much do I pay per session? Eh? I pay around $20 a month I think to go to the YMCA. I am looking to eventually get a power rack and all that at my house, that way Ill be able to workout at home. That would be the ideal situation. But I dont know yet. I have to get a house before I can get a home gym, hehe.

    195 bnp x1.5 nuff said
    Thanks a lot BR. Appreciate it man, yeah 195 was a b*tch but to be honest after the guy lifted it off the rack it really wasnt too bad. I mean he gave me a lift-off which really is a big help. I am definitely going to use a spotter and get a lift-off on my next chest session, hopefully Ill get 290 x 2---finally.

    great workout in such a short space of time, i really like the idea of your low reps/followed by moderate ones. Seems to be a breakthrough.
    Yeah I think that this is going to be a great way of training. I searched back through chris mason's posts from forever ago and he advocated this type of rep method. The first set more of a power set, in the 1 or 2-4 rep range. And the second set more of a 'pump' set so to speak, in the 6-10 rep range. I honestly feel that strength and size can be achieved on this type of rep scheme. As long as low-volume is used. High volume would obviously push a natural trainee into overtraining---with all of the heavy singles and doubles that one must perform.

    A guy at my gym today was doing french presses on a smith and his sholder popped out, he was walking round lob sided and didn't even realise what he had done till he looked in the mirror! with you doing bnp's it made me think of it lol.
    Thats a great thought, hehe thanks BR. Ill be sure to think of this next time I go to do BTN presses. Yeah man some crazy sh*t happens with working out you really have to be extremely careful I think. Not f*ck up. I mean its so easy to get injured when you get into the heavy poundages.

    The notes by chris mason are pretty sweet and an interesting read, nice work

    BR
    Yeah thats the truth. The guy knows his sh*t what can I say. We definitely have some real training experts here at WBB. I hope that chris mason and PowerMan and a few others stick around. It seems that the really smart guys and the veterans always offer great advice but tend to stop posting or something. I have read some posts by a guy named "The Cobra" who seemed to know his sh*t and I dont know what the hell happened to him. I think he posts over at MM.com now.

  20. #1245
    Player Hater PowerManDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    7,850
    Originally posted by MonStar
    I agree. I feel that both of these would result in hypertrophy. To sum up what you said I am going to give 2 examples that make it a bit easier to understand.

    Example A.
    295 x 1, 285 x 2, 275 x 3

    Example B.
    215 x 12, 205 x 10, 195 x 8


    Well assuming that the 1RM of 300 lbs still holds, you'd end up with:

    A: 295 (1 @ 98%) + 570 (2 @ 95%) + 825 (3 @ 92%) = 1690, NL= 6, Irel= 94%
    B: 2580 (12 @ 72%) + 2050 (10 @ 68%) + 1560 (8 @ 65%) = 6190, NL= 30, Irel= 69%

    I don't think either of these is optimal for hypertrophy. The would cause it, yes, but two reasons its not optimal: 1) the relative intensity is to high and low, respectively; 2) the total volume is inappropriate for the distribution of intensities.

    You'd want to keep the relative intensity (Irel) between 75 and 90%, and keep the lifts distributed fairly evenly, with most falling between 70 and 90% (this doesn't mean they ALL have to fall there; just the majority of them).

    The total volume (1690 and 6190 in the examples above) is the critical factor, PROVIDED that the Irel and intensity distribution is correct. Once those two factors are accounted for (in other words, ensuring that the workload/volume is performed in the "growth zone"), it becomes a matter of optimizing that volume so that the proper balance between 1) stimulus and 2) recovery is reached.

    It wouldn't be terribly hard to sit down and do some calculations on paper, in fact, to draw up a "rough draft" of some ideal set/rep/load combinations.

    With your example youre increasing the volume in the 2nd example but even if the volume is not increased, I feel that the result will still be the same. Rep scheme and load does play a very very large factor. It seems to change the given results but I am curious as to how much. If the volume is constant, how much more hypertrophy would be achieved in Example B vs. Example A? And how much more strength? [/QUOTE]

    Well first of all, we're playing with about three different concepts of "Volume" here. Firstly, we have the set volume, which is basically the number of sets used. Secondly, we have the NL (number of lifts), which is how many reps are done; set volume is a function of this, depending on the other variables. Thirdly, we have actual Volume, which is also called total training load or workload, and represents the actual amount of weight lifted.

    NL is the one I base most of my calculations on, since its easier to deal with. When I said to increase volume, I meant to make an equal NL; this would, assuming the Irel were kept the same, result in a higher cumulative Volume. In other words, 10x3 @ 90% v. 3x10 @ 75% = 27 v. 22.5 (using arbitrary units; Irel is the same as the "loading"). You see what I'm getting at, either way; given an equal NL, the higher relative intensity will always create more tension.

    The problem in using 90% or above is that sooner or later you'll burn out. If you use <70%, you'd have to use a ridiculous amount of lifts to achieve the same effect. So the answer becomes pretty obvious.
    Vin Diesel has a fever.. and the only prescription is more cowbell.

    Budiak: That girl I maced
    Budiak: macked
    Budiak: heh maced
    Budiak: I wish

    ShmrckPmp5: a good thing people can't fire guns through the computer...your ass would have been shot years ago

    Y2A 47: youre smooth as hell
    Y2A 47: thats why you get outta tickets, and into panties

    galileo: you're a fucking beast and I hate you
    galileo: hate

    assgrabbers are never subtile, they will grabb ass whereever they go,public or not, I know the type, because I am one. - Rock

  21. #1246
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,662
    I think I had one of my temporary moments of lucid thought when I did that post earlier . I must make an amendment to that post. When I got home, I researched Dorian's routines a tad more and found that he did more like 5-6 sets of 5-8 reps to failure. We should also remember that he performed at least 1-2 sets of reasonably heavy warmups as well (I am not counting the really light warmups). So, it seems that we can establish a proven lower limit threshold of intense reps at 25. During my research I also remembered Casey Viator and the Colorado Experiment . You know the one, Casey put on 63.21 lbs of muscle in only 28 days. Of course, it must be noted that he was regaining muscle lost during a layoff due to an accident at work and a subsequent allergic reaction to an antitetanus shot. Before the accident he weighed 200 lbs. He got down to 166.87 lbs, his weight at the beginning of the experiment. By the end he weighed 212.15 lbs and his bodyfat had dropped 11.33%. Pretty amazing stuff! Anyway, it is documented that he trained 14 times over the 28 days. Each session consisted of 1 set of an average of 12 different exercises. Each session lasted an average of 33.6 minutes. The information I am using is from The Nautilus Bodybuilding Book . It does not state the exact reps used, but I believe it must have been approximately 10 reps per set, possibly higher for legs. If we assume that Casey performed roughly 2 sets per bodypart, using 10 reps per set, then we can state a new "low" threshold for mass of 20 reps per bodypart. Of course, if I think about it, only 4 of those reps were performed with an intensity of effort greater than 70% of his momentary capability. In other words, the other 16 reps were performed at 70% or less intensity.

    Let's go back to Dorian now, how many of his reps were performed at greater than 70%? At the minimum (5 reps for 5 sets to failure) , Dorian trained with 10 reps at greater than 70% intensity (again, defined as a percentage of momentary effort).

    What about Doug? Doug is a lot trickier, but I will give it a go. Doug would perform a varying rep routine. He would use 10 sets per bodypart, one exercise. He would perform the 1st 5 sets using 1 rep per set. The next 5 sets would be performed with a reduced weight for 3 reps per set. On the first 5 sets he would add 2.5 lbs per set making the 5th set his heaviest. He would use a weight he could lift for 5 reps for the first 5 sets. So, this is where I have to do some guessing. I have to make an educated leap. Let us use a weight of 100 lbs as the starting weight. Doug is at roughly 100% intensity at the 5th rep with that weight. Doug is going to increase the weight 10% by the 5th set, yet he will still be performing only 1 rep. My logical leap is guessing what % 100 lbs is of his 1RM. I am going to guess it is 80%, thus making his 1RM 125 lbs. Thus, each single rep during the first 5 sets is performed at greater than 70% intensity of effort. Now, I don't know how much he would drop the resistance for his next 5 sets, so I can only guess at those reps. This is a bigger stretch, but I am going to go with 5 more reps at the threshold or greater on these sets. Doug would add 1 rep per set during each subsequent workout until he could get 5 reps for all 10 sets. He would then up the resistance 10 lbs and start over again. So, for Doug we have at least 10 reps performed at greater than 70% intensity of effort.

    So, what is the conclusion here? Who knows, but the implication is that one should perform at least 4 reps at greater than 70% intensity in order to stimulate good hypertrophy. Of course I haven't really proven anything as I don't know if a minimum number of reps at various ranges below 70ish% intensity are required for hypertrophy, or whether those reps are all that count. I guess we should all experiment and find out, no?

  22. #1247
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by PowerManDL
    Well assuming that the 1RM of 300 lbs still holds, you'd end up with:

    A: 295 (1 @ 98%) + 570 (2 @ 95%) + 825 (3 @ 92%) = 1690, NL= 6, Irel= 94%
    B: 2580 (12 @ 72%) + 2050 (10 @ 68%) + 1560 (8 @ 65%) = 6190, NL= 30, Irel= 69%

    I don't think either of these is optimal for hypertrophy. The would cause it, yes, but two reasons its not optimal: 1) the relative intensity is to high and low, respectively; 2) the total volume is inappropriate for the distribution of intensities.

    You'd want to keep the relative intensity (Irel) between 75 and 90%, and keep the lifts distributed fairly evenly, with most falling between 70 and 90% (this doesn't mean they ALL have to fall there; just the majority of them).

    The total volume (1690 and 6190 in the examples above) is the critical factor, PROVIDED that the Irel and intensity distribution is correct. Once those two factors are accounted for (in other words, ensuring that the workload/volume is performed in the "growth zone"), it becomes a matter of optimizing that volume so that the proper balance between 1) stimulus and 2) recovery is reached.

    It wouldn't be terribly hard to sit down and do some calculations on paper, in fact, to draw up a "rough draft" of some ideal set/rep/load combinations.
    Okay I am slowly starting to understand what youre saying Matt, althought I dont think there is a reason to make things so complicated. I understand that youre getting into the specific workloads and specific intensities and all of that---but I just feel that the bottom line always the same. I am not trying to offend you here at all, so please dont take offense to anything that I am saying. But I just honestly feel that okay after all of the debating about slow reps and explosive reps you finally summed it all up by saying that the ideal rep speed for hypertrophy is a slow negative, and an explosive positive. This is something that has been a known fact for I dont know how long. I just dont understand why we wouldnt keep things more simple, thats all. I mean having all of this knowledge is great but a lot of time I get confused when youre trying to pass some of that knowledge onto me---or anyone else. I just feel like all of these numbers and relative intensities and all that are just confusing. Maybe you could write up a rough draft like you were saying and kind of make it easy for everyone to understand. Because I wonder how many people can fully understand all of this talk about workload and volume. Not that its inaccurate or anything like that, I just wonder how much is actually applicable. I feel the same way about Supertraining. I dont find much in that book actually applicable.

    Well first of all, we're playing with about three different concepts of "Volume" here. Firstly, we have the set volume, which is basically the number of sets used. Secondly, we have the NL (number of lifts), which is how many reps are done; set volume is a function of this, depending on the other variables. Thirdly, we have actual Volume, which is also called total training load or workload, and represents the actual amount of weight lifted.

    NL is the one I base most of my calculations on, since its easier to deal with. When I said to increase volume, I meant to make an equal NL; this would, assuming the Irel were kept the same, result in a higher cumulative Volume. In other words, 10x3 @ 90% v. 3x10 @ 75% = 27 v. 22.5 (using arbitrary units; Irel is the same as the "loading"). You see what I'm getting at, either way; given an equal NL, the higher relative intensity will always create more tension.

    The problem in using 90% or above is that sooner or later you'll burn out. If you use <70%, you'd have to use a ridiculous amount of lifts to achieve the same effect. So the answer becomes pretty obvious.
    Again I just feel that all this talk is just making things more and more confusing for me. I must be friggin' retarded because I get completely, and I mean completely lost reading your posts. Again PLEASE dont take offense to this, because I generally find what you post extremely informative. Lol when you finally finish up your post with "the answer becomes pretty obvious." Ill tell you Matt---the answer is FAR from obvious. For me at least. I am hoping that youll just devise a training program with meso/micro-cycles and let me take a look at it. Because when you talk about how youre devising a program I am so friggin' lost. You have no idea.

  23. #1248
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by chris mason
    I think I had one of my temporary moments of lucid thought when I did that post earlier . I must make an amendment to that post. When I got home, I researched Dorian's routines a tad more and found that he did more like 5-6 sets of 5-8 reps to failure. We should also remember that he performed at least 1-2 sets of reasonably heavy warmups as well (I am not counting the really light warmups). So, it seems that we can establish a proven lower limit threshold of intense reps at 25. During my research I also remembered Casey Viator and the Colorado Experiment . You know the one, Casey put on 63.21 lbs of muscle in only 28 days. Of course, it must be noted that he was regaining muscle lost during a layoff due to an accident at work and a subsequent allergic reaction to an antitetanus shot. Before the accident he weighed 200 lbs. He got down to 166.87 lbs, his weight at the beginning of the experiment. By the end he weighed 212.15 lbs and his bodyfat had dropped 11.33%. Pretty amazing stuff! Anyway, it is documented that he trained 14 times over the 28 days. Each session consisted of 1 set of an average of 12 different exercises. Each session lasted an average of 33.6 minutes. The information I am using is from The Nautilus Bodybuilding Book . It does not state the exact reps used, but I believe it must have been approximately 10 reps per set, possibly higher for legs. If we assume that Casey performed roughly 2 sets per bodypart, using 10 reps per set, then we can state a new "low" threshold for mass of 20 reps per bodypart. Of course, if I think about it, only 4 of those reps were performed with an intensity of effort greater than 70% of his momentary capability. In other words, the other 16 reps were performed at 70% or less intensity.
    EXCELLENT post here chris. I remember reading the Colorado Experiment and really being amazed. I couldnt figure out whether it was bullsh*t or not---obviously not huh? Anyway I never even thought about the "threshold for mass," thats totally amazing to me. I always heard about the rep scheme for each individual set, not really the overall # of reps. I am performing something along the lines of 15-20 total reps for a large bodypart. My first workset in the 2-3 rep range and my 2nd workset in the 6-8 rep range. So I guess I am really pushing the lower-volume part of the limit. I didnt even think about that. I doubt that I am too low for hypertrophy though.

    Let's go back to Dorian now, how many of his reps were performed at greater than 70%? At the minimum (5 reps for 5 sets to failure) , Dorian trained with 10 reps at greater than 70% intensity (again, defined as a percentage of momentary effort).
    Another interesting point chris. Okay my first workset in the 1-4 rep range is a maximal set. It is taken to muscular failure. Thats without question. Now my 2nd workset is generally taken a few reps shy of failure. I am wondering if maybe this 2nd workset would be more productive if I took it to failure. Although it would be hard on my CNS.

    What about Doug? Doug is a lot trickier, but I will give it a go. Doug would perform a varying rep routine. He would use 10 sets per bodypart, one exercise. He would perform the 1st 5 sets using 1 rep per set. The next 5 sets would be performed with a reduced weight for 3 reps per set. On the first 5 sets he would add 2.5 lbs per set making the 5th set his heaviest. He would use a weight he could lift for 5 reps for the first 5 sets. So, this is where I have to do some guessing. I have to make an educated leap. Let us use a weight of 100 lbs as the starting weight. Doug is at roughly 100% intensity at the 5th rep with that weight. Doug is going to increase the weight 10% by the 5th set, yet he will still be performing only 1 rep. My logical leap is guessing what % 100 lbs is of his 1RM. I am going to guess it is 80%, thus making his 1RM 125 lbs. Thus, each single rep during the first 5 sets is performed at greater than 70% intensity of effort. Now, I don't know how much he would drop the resistance for his next 5 sets, so I can only guess at those reps. This is a bigger stretch, but I am going to go with 5 more reps at the threshold or greater on these sets. Doug would add 1 rep per set during each subsequent workout until he could get 5 reps for all 10 sets. He would then up the resistance 10 lbs and start over again. So, for Doug we have at least 10 reps performed at greater than 70% intensity of effort.

    So, what is the conclusion here? Who knows, but the implication is that one should perform at least 4 reps at greater than 70% intensity in order to stimulate good hypertrophy. Of course I haven't really proven anything as I don't know if a minimum number of reps at various ranges below 70ish% intensity are required for hypertrophy, or whether those reps are all that count. I guess we should all experiment and find out, no?
    Good conclusion chris. I agree that the implication is that a trainee should perform at least 4 reps at greater than 70% intensity. I am not sure how youre determining intensity, but when I am coming within a rep or two of failure I think thats near 100% intensity. Maybe 90% or so. I am thinking that my heavy maximal set and my lighter submaximal set are both above 70% intensity. Obviously my first workset being right at 100% for the most part.

  24. #1249
    Player Hater PowerManDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    7,850
    Ok, how's this:

    92% x3, 88% x5, 80% x7, 76% x8

    On my squat, est. 345 max, that would be

    315x3, 305x5, 275x7, 265x8

    NL = 23 (total repetitions)
    Total Volume = 945 + 1525 + 1925 + 2120 = 6515
    Avg/Rel Intensity = 283 lbs/ 82%
    Intensity Breakdown:
    70%+ = 35% of lifts
    80%+ = 52% of lifts
    90%+ = 13% of lifts

    I want you to know that I'm working through all this as a thought experiment, to show what's actually going on here. You don't have to do this for every exercise; you can get a feel for the proper loading ranges by seeing how everything falls.

    The idea is to maximize the load wrt number of reps with that load (or tension wrt to time, to bring it all together). What I outlined right above would be an excellent mass-builder using my squat as an example.
    Vin Diesel has a fever.. and the only prescription is more cowbell.

    Budiak: That girl I maced
    Budiak: macked
    Budiak: heh maced
    Budiak: I wish

    ShmrckPmp5: a good thing people can't fire guns through the computer...your ass would have been shot years ago

    Y2A 47: youre smooth as hell
    Y2A 47: thats why you get outta tickets, and into panties

    galileo: you're a fucking beast and I hate you
    galileo: hate

    assgrabbers are never subtile, they will grabb ass whereever they go,public or not, I know the type, because I am one. - Rock

  25. #1250
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,662
    Don't read much into my post Monstar, it was just thinking on paper. I really didn't come to a conclusion and I got tired of typing so I cut things short.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •