I've been listening a lot to Lyle McDonald lately, and he makes a lot of sense, and seems to poke holes in the hypertrophy literature.
Yet pic related is the closest thing I can find to a pic of his body, and it's not that impressive.
At least for natties, if high intensity and training to absolute failure is more important than volume, why does Lyle look like a Dyel?
There are "natties" who credit high intensity for their impressive physiques, but they're all obviously on gear (like Geoffrey Schofield)
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
Volume is intensity you frickwit.
A set can't get intense without burning all the current oxygen and atp inside the muscle and requiring your heart to pump.
Lifting heavy isn't this and will not make intensity it doesn't trigger hypertrophy in the same way
You're getting really agro for a guy who's so fricking stupid he doesn't know volume is just a measurement, which in lifting is "reps." Like, you learn this in elementary school so I'm concerned why you're this stupid.
Its really amusing watching morons like you getting shitty because someones correct and your wrong. Your by defination a literal failure by your close mindendeness alone.
>your by defination
Volume is not the same as intensity. Here is what all intensity based lifters forget. Try to pick a heavy exercise, like bench.
>do 10 reps to absolute failure, next set you can do probably 7 to failure and then maybe 4-5
>total 21-22 reps
OR
>do 3x8, that equals to 24 reps lifted. More volume with less intensity
so lifting at your absolute max capacity isn't intense? cool, gotcha
>Volume is intensity
absolute moron detected.
Curling a soup can 100 times is more volume than curling 50lb dumbbell 8 times but guess which one builds muscle
50lb * 8 = 400lb of work
1lb * 100 = 100lb of work
>Curling a soup can 100 times is more volume than curling 50lb dumbbell 8 times but guess which one builds muscle
What about 25lb. dumbbells for 20 reps vs. 50lb. dumbbells for 8 reps? (IME, it's the former.)
5-12 reps, MAAAYBE up to 20 for strictly accessories you want to burn out. Even then, pyramid burnouts are better. Lower end of 5ish for strength. Higher end of 12ish for hypertrophy or size. As long as you go to failure. This shit really isn't rocket science.
To near failure. Recovering from failure takes a toll on the body. Keep doing heavy straight sets to near failure and add keep adding weight and/or reps.
Depends on your lifestyle and schedule. If you eat super well/are in a decent surplus, are young, and have good genetics you might be able to recover in time for your next split. I lift 3 times a week, and train mma 3 days, rest 4th. I can train to failure and be ready for the split next week. But depends on your goals and schedule. If you want to do 2 splits a week, ya you probably wouldn't do failure.
I never go to failure because injuries and I get really good results. Frick going to failure. In fact I use very low weights and have not even found it possible to go to failure, I just run out of time.
> but guess which one builds muscle
Do you eat the soup afterwards?
What kind of soup is it?
>why does Lyle look like a Dyel?
genetics
>powerlifter does low volume, lifts heavy, looks dyel
gee, what a mystery.
That's fricking stupid. Volume doesn't matter. If you are really strong you should look strong.
>for context, you can tske steroids, and do nothing all day, and still build more muscle than a natty who lifts on an optimal routine
Except the routine they used in the study you are referencing sucks. So you are already wrong out of the gate.
>Except the routine they used in the study you are referencing sucks
doesn't matter
my point is that roids = easy muscle in all scenarios
yet HIT provides the most muscle when followed correctly
modern bodybuilders are jacked as frick and support volume training because despite building extra muscle, they'd snap their shit up if they did HIT, as their roid-originative muscle mass is proportionately stronger than their supporting components, such as tendons, ligaments, bones, synovial fluid, etc
natties do not have this risk factor, and can build maximal muscle from HIT, as opposed to bullshit roid-oriented junk volume programs
you're a gay and wrong post body mr muscle man
>yet HIT provides the most muscle when followed correctly
>modern bodybuilders are jacked as frick and support volume training because despite building extra muscle, they'd snap their shit up if they did HIT, as their roid-originative muscle mass is proportionately stronger than their supporting components, such as tendons, ligaments, bones, synovial fluid, etc
Then why does no one do HIT, if it works so well?
Even natty bodybuilders train much more like Arnold than Mentzer.
it's too hard + these guys love the gym and want to be there 24/7, not only 3x a week
Well it really would be. If you see a guy that benches 1pl8 and a guy that benches 3pl8 guess who has bigger chest.
I would say most real powerlifters get a good amount of volume. If you want to get strong you have to practice the lift pretty frequently
You can grow muscle through volume or through weight but I have injuries so volume is the way to go and if you want to avoid injuries too volume is the way to go. Spend more time doing way more reps but at least you won't be injured, you can focus more on breathing and form and so on making every single rep robotically perfect, etc.
I recently switched to 14 sets of 88 reps every night (I'm nocturnal) and my results have been way better but it takes me the entire night. I pick a very light weight or use a band or do whatever it is that I can do 88 reps of for one set. The gains I'm making now are absolutely impressive, far more than the bullshit "do 8 to 15 reps pet set" lifting heavy nonsense.
Every night I'm just exercising constantly listening to audiobooks, sometimes music, or podcasts... and the only other thing I do is piss, eat, and prepare food (and I do reps while waiting for my soup or oatmeal to be finished too). I'm able also to keep going every night, I don't need to take a night off to rest and recover, every night I do this.
post body
Lyle has guys who rep what he says and look good. He's naturally more well known than them because he's an actual author of a bunch of books whereas they're just guys with a FB account in his body recomposition page who look great.
Yes. Use drop sets and keeping lowering the weight as you fail until you can't move the lightest weight on the stack. This kind of intensity will absolutely give you gains.
So keep lowering the volume because you get fatigued? This is absolutely NOT the way to get gains. Strict straight sets to near failure is the best way to gains.
A drop set pushes you even further into failure than a straight set. You fail with one weight and immediately use lighter weight, fail with that, use lighter weight, etc. If you do a straight set to failure, you only fail with that weight, but your muscles still have more in the tank. The metabolic adaptation won't be the same.
yes
roiders get big with low intensity volume because the steroids are extremely effective
for context, you can tske steroids, and do nothing all day, and still build more muscle than a natty who lifts on an optimal routine
additionally, the reason why roided bodybuilders don't train with high intensity, is because their muscles are too big and strong from the steroids, they would injure their bones and tendons if they lifted at maximum intensity and didn't follow an extremely strict protocol to reduce injury risks, ronnie coleman is the ultimate example of this, but many other high intensity bodybuilders also got injured because they didn't appropriatelt handle recovery
intensity = more muscle, but also injury risk if recovery is poorly handled, and as roiders love the gym, only lifting 2 or 3 days a week is unacceptable for them
roids = lots of muscle from minimal stimulus, which is why roiders get big from junk volume programs that are useless for natties
this is why roiders are against HIT, they'd get hurt
natties do not have as much muscle as roiders, and as such, benefit maximally from HIT
meanwhile roiders need to stay safe, train moderately, and build muscle with submaximal stimulus
simple as
Ya pretty much true. But I wouldn't say volume is low stimulus, just a different kind. There's a balance between intensity and hypertrophy. If a natty lifts for hypertrophy, i.e. that burn you get from longer grinding sets, their muscles get super fatigued quickly and won't recover in 2 days or so when you are doing that muscle group again. That's not ideal, so nattys will lift lower volume to get at least get some strength and intensity stimulus without wrecking their muscles for next time. On roids, recovery is much less of a concern. So they can do crazy volume and get the best of both intensity and hypertrophy.
>for context, you can tske steroids, and do nothing all day, and still build more muscle than a natty who lifts on an optimal routine
Yet another brainlet who doesn't understand what glycogen is
roidcel cope
>noo the roids i injected aren't building any muscle it's just water weight and glycogen bro i swear
fricking lmao
“Roiders are against HIT”
Every notable HIT advocate was on steroids. You’re a fricking moron.
not the modern professional bodybuilder roiders
as the gear became more potent, the muscular/structural strength balance became increasingly dramatic, requiring the newer era of bodybuilders to reduce their training intensity, as they'd suffer from rhabdo and various structural strains to their bodies, such as tendon tears, or spinal injuries
the overall concept is that more intensity = more muscle, but as the increased strength of steroids over time cause more muscle to be built than the ligaments, tendons, and certain bone structures can handle if the muscle handles weight requiring maximum force, then bodybuilders with the increased-potency steroids absolutely must reduce their intensity, and compensate with more volume, otherwise fatal injuries are guaranteed
MODERN steroids make muscles too strong, cant lift too hard otherwise the body breaks
back in the 70s and 80s they took simple shit, test, deca, winstrol, and in reasonable amounts
now you have guys walking around with 15k ngdl test, wtf?
steroids too strong!!!
or it's like how weed became strong as frick and turned everybody schizophrenic, so stoners had to start reducing the amount they smoked lol
Outside of pro-hormones there are no new steroids. Everything people use has been around for decades. Some stuff goes in and out of vogue but this stuff has been around forever. GH and slin is newer but would not result in increased injuries.
Also, I’m on steroids and employ many high-intensity techniques. Injury-free for close to a decade. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
>Geoffrey Schofield
>not natty
Lol, you have low standards
He doesn't advocate going to failure more than once every couple of weeks. But he does say you have to actually hit failure periodically to know where it is. He trains people with the same reps in reserve practice as everyone else. As for his body
started late, not great genetics and most tragic of all lifelong natty. His diet advice is probably better than his lifting advice and certainly more of it is applicable to a wider range of training styles.
The main take away from lyle's training advice is: adding volume without sufficient intensity is not a good strategy for natties.
Which is not even remotely controversial.
>He doesn't advocate going to failure more than once every couple of weeks
For which group
That shouldn't be a one size fits all prescription
For beginners they should be constantly training near failure
Most of his advice is for intermediates so I'd say them. Novices are just a mess to deal with in any fashion besides telling them to "just lift" since they never stick to programs or diets and have to learn the hard way at every juncture.
>adding volume without sufficient intensity is not a good strategy for natties.
What do you mean by "sufficient intensity" ?
As in within 1-3 reps of failure and usually 10 reps or under. Lyle like the 6-8 rep range a lot and accessory spam not so much. He think people don't train to failure often enough to really know where it is are keeping too many reps in reserve by default. Which is something I remember a couple studies demonstrated but I don't care to really look them up.
>why does Lyle look like a Dyel?
genetics, look at his wrists for a start.
Pic related is Brad Schoenfeld, who looks pretty good for an older natty.
>trt = natty
I'm pretty sure Lyle does endurance sports, plus he is right. Big guys preach heavy intensity too. Don't get full HIT or Mentzer because that's just crazy. But look at Dante Trudel's stuff, or Jordan Peters. Someone will inevitably point out their enhanced, but natural guys do the same too (Jeff Alberts, Ben Howard, AJ Morris, Khifie West)
1. Research conducted by Roux-Lange indicated the following: “Only when a muscle performs with
greatest power, i.e., through overcoming a greater resistance than before in a unit of time, will its
functional cross-section need to increase. .. . Hypertrophy is seen only in muscles that must
perform a great amount of work in a unit of time” (Lange, Ueber Funktionelle Anpassung USW,
Berlin, Julius Springer, 1917). Further research by Petow and Siebert put a finer point on the
intensity issue: “Hypertrophy results from an increase in the intensity of work done, whereas the
total amount of work done is without significance” (W. Siebert and H. Petow, Studien uber
Arbeitshypertrophie des Muskels, Z. Klin Medl, 102, 427-433, 1925). Research conducted by
Arthur H. Steinhaus stated: “Only when intensity is increased does hypertrophy follow.” (A.
Steinhaus, The Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, Vol. 9. No. 5,
Sep—Oct, 1955, 147-150).
Then why do mechanics and plumbers have such big forearms?
Lyle McDonald is just another science gay who reads papers looking for information that might be useful for bodybuilding and fitness.
These people think they are so educated and brilliant, but their approach is flawed and they always read way too much into things.
If you want to build muscle you have to train hard. There is no other way. That might mean lifting heavy weights or it might mean lifting lighter weights doing many sets with little rest time. Various methods have been proven to work. If you go to the gym and your training session doesn't feel like a challenge then you are going too easy.
It's a shame when midwids here become anti intellectuals because they get criticized too much rather than funnel that into a pursuit of being right like Lyle did.
Intensity is based on percentage of your 1rm. 85% and up activates more neurological response quicker because it's more challenging. What the frick does doing a set to "absolute failure" with 70% fricking matter
Look at the guys who spout this nonsense. Be it randos on instagram comments or anywhere else. Universally they have subpar physiques. Ironically HIT is far more useful ON GEAR than being natty. Some guy who has lifted for a year or two or less doing one set to failure is going to get dogshit gains. Some guy who has lifted for years and has a syringe sticking out of his ass three times a week is capable of completely demolishing a muscle in one set with intensity techniques, but 95% of the time a guy who has gotten that far isn’t going to want to be a mike mentzer “akshually you should work out less” minimalist. Dorian Yates remains an extreme outlier because he:
>built up his physique and mind muscle connection with years of volume training first (don’t buy the bullshit that he started off this way- he was anti squats as well but a look back at his interviews shows he still did years of squats before dropping them)
>had the rare combination of extreme intensity AND focus- watch blood and guys. Zero guys in the gym look like this and neither do you despite your delusions
>was on an absolute shitload of gear including tren hex
>had genetics capable of making him literally the best bodybuilder in the entire world
The catch 22 of HIT is that the people attracted to it are nearly always the insufferable know it all types with subpar genetics and lacking in mind muscle connection bodybuilding experience to get the most out of it. So in practice mentzertards always look bad
Straight sets are tested and proven but they're boring and time consuming. I wanna know if I can replace them with a 1 set technique like dropsets or pyramid and move on to the next exercise, and if it's still optimal.