Train once every 4 to 7 days. Stop overtraining. This is why you're still DYEL.

Train once every 4 to 7 days.
Stop overtraining.
This is why you're still DYEL.

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This only applies to lifters above novice level. You need to train regularly to build a base, mike's method only needs to apply when you hit a plateau. You fricking crackhead

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is true. Mike in his book talked about how he introduced beginners to training.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks ill look up these exercises for when I join the gym

        Im a complete noob and did 7kg dumbell curls and then turned the dumbells 90 degrees so that theyre vertical and did some curls like that and my arms have been severely sore for like 5 days

        Need to take it slow at the start I guess with no muscle

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's kinda confusing with all the different routines he recommended at different stages of his life. Like there's the stuff from heavy duty, the stuff from the tapes, the stuff from heavy duty ii.

        Just started mentzergayging after hitting a plateau, wish me luck bros.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Just go off his last book and some info from the tapes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Based. Don't forget about the intensity, it's a vital part.

      Also, blast gear. Very important part of the routine.

      meth is also a good preworkout stack

      >emulate the methods of a hyper responder on steroids
      God I fricking hate mentzergays

      >seething anti-mentzer gays show up
      Like clockwork. Post bodies (you won't)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Post yours. You're the one advocating for a training style, you have to prove it works.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >mike's method only needs to apply when you hit a plateau
      What is this method?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He had 4 lifts. I don’t have the book by me now and I forget the 4th but the three I remember is heavy squats in smith machine, heavy deadlift in smith machine, and heavy lat pulldown palms facing in. I don’t remember the fourth but he did have you sub in leg press for either squat or deadlift depending on need, but only sparingly. When I get home I’ll find it and post the quote.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > 4 lifts
          There are a lot of exercises in his books. His "Ideal routine" has about 15 different exercises with 4-5 each day and recommended alternatives to the listed exercises, i.e. dips for the chest or bench press instead of incline press.

          The Consolidation routine is the six exercises. The first workout is Squats, reverse grip pulldowns, and dips. Then 5-6 days later it would be Deadlift, BTNP, and calf raises.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, by the end of his life he said you only needed four, two per week. I can’t remember what he had paired with lat pulldown, but squat and deads were his “leg” week. It is in “The Wisdom of Mike Mentzer”.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Dips

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Thank you

              • 1 month ago
                Shaman of /fit/

                Where did work for the lateral delt, and subscapularis come from then?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He claimed those four took care of everything.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A stupid thing to say, when you're a novice all sorts of things work. Based on that truth, that would be the best time to do Mike's silly routine since nearly anything works at that stage

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Also, blast gear. Very important part of the routine.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    meth is also a good preworkout stack

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >emulate the methods of a hyper responder on steroids
    God I fricking hate mentzergays

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >do 5 sets with 10 reps
      >when a little pain pop up he'll throw away the iron to make loud noises
      >thinks he's cool, makes no gains
      Sheesh i hate casual lifters

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You forgot "muscle growth is painfully slow and will take you 3 years for someone to notice you lift"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That wouldn't work out because Mike claimed that someone could reach their genetic within a year with the right training.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty sure people are dyel because they only follow the once a week method without applying the use of ego lifting along side it.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Science says he's fricking wrong

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It doesn't. You only need one set to failure. If you're not going to failure, it doesn't mean you don't need more.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >.02% difference
        >Doesn't quantify the uncertainty
        Jfc, bullshit science. Just accept that Mentzer was a troubled genius

        https://i.imgur.com/L2P2BSy.png

        >science
        Whose science, exactly?

        https://i.imgur.com/37Bqi4w.png

        >some instagram infographic
        >science
        alright there, champ

        bullshit and he's right. effective volume is what's relevant, meaning the number sets within a few reps from failure and going to actual failure brings no benefit , may even be detrimental. as a beginner you can get away with pretty low weekly volume, but you have to increase it at some point to continue to grow and it's irrelevant whether you go to actual failure while doing so

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33555822/
        >Resistance training not to failure may induce comparable or even greater improvements in maximal dynamic strength and power output, whereas no difference between RTF vs. RTNF is observed on muscle hypertrophy, considering equalized RT volumes.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36334240/
        >our main findings suggest that (i) there is no evidence to support that resistance training performed to momentary muscular failure is superior to non-failure resistance training for muscle hypertrophy and (ii) higher velocity loss thresholds, and theoretically closer proximities-to-failure do not always elicit greater muscle hypertrophy. As such, these results provide evidence for a potential non-linear relationship between proximity-to-failure and muscle hypertrophy.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33497853/
        >Training to muscle failure does not seem to be required for gains in strength and muscle size. However, training in this manner does not seem to have detrimental effects on these adaptations, either. More studies should be conducted among older adults and highly trained individuals to improve the generalizability of these findings.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33343066/
        >In conclusion, RT-F and RT-NF are similarly effective in promoting increases in muscle mass, PA, FL, strength and activation.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >only 14 participants
          >only 10 weeks long
          >participants conducted different training on each leg, even though we know there’s a symmetrical carryover effect between limbs.
          >didn't control for any other variables like diet or other workload on the system
          And you form advice based on studies like this? This is garbage.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >only 10 weeks long
            it's enough to induce hyperthophy for the purpose of the study
            >participants conducted different training on each leg, even though we know there’s a symmetrical carryover effect between limbs.
            to some extent but the difference is sufficient to in studies that happen to compare protocols that actually ilicit a varying response
            >didn't control for any other variables like diet or other workload on the system
            yeah, because it automatically disqualifies a fricking within-subjects study lmao. but let's see all those well-funded studies in favor of HIT that track every step and calorie consumed of thousands of participants.
            >conveniently ingores several meta-analyses that incude many different methodologies and study designs

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Metastudies are worth less than individual studies imo. They only ever add bias and uncertainty.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Metastudies are worth less than individual studies imo. They only ever add bias and uncertainty.

              I don’t even bother reading them at this point anymore. They’re lacking in such detail as to be useless. Even the one singular study (last in your list) about the participants who trained each leg independently failed to provide the data from each individual participant. I would want to see that, at the bare minimum.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >effective volume is what's relevant
          Define effective volume.
          > may even be detrimental
          Unless you're a professional athlete and have a game tomorrow. Otherwise, it's probably not going to be detrimental unless you're Indian. But you go snake eyes in the genetic lottery anyways if that was the case.
          >as a beginner you can get away with pretty low weekly volume, but you have to increase it at some point to continue to grow
          There really isn't a reason to believe this. You'll need more tonnage (btw volume = sets x reps by definition and does not account for loading). However, increases in tonnage can be achieved without increases in volume so that is not necessary. But than again adding weight to the bar just traditional progressive overload (the part that causes adaptation).
          >it's irrelevant whether you go to actual failure while doing so
          Kinda funny to assert this when
          >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33555822/
          reviews mostly studies on untrained individuals (they grow from anything).
          >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36334240/
          His review set still has high velocity loss (around failure or to failure) doing better than training to low or moderate velocity loss. Whereas the study you're replying to the replies to has everyone training to high velocity loss whether it's failure or 1-2RIR.
          >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33497853/
          >Training to muscle failure does not seem to be required for gains in strength and muscle size. However, training in this manner does not seem to have detrimental effects on these adaptations, either.
          His conclusion contradicts your "detrimental" supposition.
          >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33343066/
          The only thing this study does is claim the obvious that everyone already knew for decades, that training to failure is not necessary to grow.

          There's also the reality that HIT guys claim that the benefit of going to failure is in time efficiency, getting more for doing less. This is largely unaddressed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Define effective volume.
            already did
            >There really isn't a reason to believe this. You'll need more tonnage (btw volume = sets x reps by definition and does not account for loading). However, increases in tonnage can be achieved without increases in volume so that is not necessary. But than again adding weight to the bar just traditional progressive overload (the part that causes adaptation).
            you need to meet certain volume to experience noticable gains (although it's pretty low) and a certain much higher volume to maximize growth, and the required volume tends to grow with training experience. literally every IRL data supports this, e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27433992/ or https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28755103/
            >reviews mostly studies on untrained individuals (they grow from anything).
            yet similar studies on trained individuals reach the same conclusion
            >His review set still has high velocity loss (around failure or to failure) doing better than training to low or moderate velocity loss. Whereas the study you're replying to the replies to has everyone training to high velocity loss whether it's failure or 1-2RIR.
            that's the point. efective sets need to stop around failure, reaching absolute failure gives basically nothing other than increased risk of injury
            >His conclusion contradicts your "detrimental" supposition.
            >may even be detrimental
            >does not seem to have
            it contradicts nothing
            >The only thing this study does is claim the obvious that everyone already knew for decades, that training to failure is not necessary to grow.
            yeah, that's the whole point, together with it not being more effective
            >There's also the reality that HIT guys claim that the benefit of going to failure is in time efficiency, getting more for doing less. This is largely unaddressed.
            it's addressed by most of the studies ITT, because there's nothing that's supports the notion that going to absolute failure actually does anything anything more than stopping near fail

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >already did
              You never did.
              >you need to meet certain volume to experience noticable gains (although it's pretty low)
              Yeah. It's one set for noticeable gains. Zero sets if you pin enough test.
              >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27433992/
              Read the actually study and look at what the studies reviewed. BTW, you should be posting the full papers uploaded to researchgate or elsewhere instead of the pubmed abstracts for the purpose of intellectual honesty
              >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305455324_Dose-response_relationship_between_weekly_resistance_training_volume_and_increases_in_muscle_mass_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis
              Again we have several problems. The vast majority of studies are in untrained individuals (hence worthless). There are really only three that use "trained" individuals.
              >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232177076_The_Effect_of_Weight_Training_Volume_on_Hormonal_Output_and_Muscular_Size_and_Function
              Three sets is as good as 6-12 sets is what's claimed by the authors. This is study claims failure is achieved using RM as a predictor. RM loads as estimates or tested are inaccurate generally or become inaccurate. In general you don't know if you hit failure unless you test it and find out you cannot do more than one rep or are experienced enough with bar speed that you can fairy accurately know it's coming. They might have been in 2-3RIR the whole time.
              >https://www2.ufjf.br/faefid//files/2009/07/3sets-training.pdf
              "Failure" is claimed to have been trained to in the conclusion. However, there is a reason to be skeptical about that as estimates were used for rep ranges used with loading. Same critique as last paper.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28755103/
              Since I have to do your work for you
              >https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0762-7
              Only four worthwhile studies according to the authors as 5 of them were in untrained.
              >https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2013/615901/
              >"The 1-set group improved in the bench press by 11.91kg (17.7%), biceps curl by 8.40kg (20.5%), and shoulder press by 11.69kg (27.8%). The 3-set group improved in the bench press by 12.10kg (17.7%), the biceps curl by 8.00kg (18.6%), and shoulder press by 9.39kg (22.0%)"
              However, this one only required at least one year of training for its participants. And
              >"Initial training loads were defined as the six repetitions maximum (6RM) or weight that each subject could perform until volitional exhaustion."
              Implies that muscular failure should not be assumed as "failure" here just means giving up. It doesn't mean actually going until you cannot physically lift the bar anymore as one would expect from muscular failure (part of the contention on why there are really so few studies on failure and so few relevant studies to the topic).

              Base on initial 1RM listed in the study, this paper is effectively useless as beginners will grow from anything. These aren't really trained individuals.
              >https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-011-1944-x
              Is the last one. It's the only other study in analysis that compared 1 set to anything at all. If you don't find and post the link to the full paper, then I'll take it as a concession that these meta-analysis you posted are worthless.
              >yet similar studies on trained individuals reach the same conclusion
              The ones in trained are fairly split and context dependent. In essence, there are only 2-3 such studies that are actually in trained individuals. One claims that low volume is as good as moderate and high volume while the other only compares 3 sets to 1 set without going to failure (rep count is not failure).

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >efective sets need to stop around failure
              Define effective sets. There is no reason why someone shouldn't do one set to failure and call that an "effective set" whatever that means as you have yet to define it. It's just a buzzword you're throwing around.
              >reaching absolute failure gives basically nothing other than increased risk of injury
              There are three forms of failure, muscular failure or concentric failure. This does not increase the chance of injury if you are lifting with good technique and control over the bar. For exercises like squat or bench press, this involves using the proper safety equipment negating any chance for injury. Just don't mindlessly drop the weight because you can't complete the positive for rep.

              Then one can have static failure/isometric failure which is extremely safe to go to. Isometrics are generally safe exercises even with fairly heavy loads.

              Negative failure is the only one potential dangerous though Mike Mentzer nor any HIT advocate has ever recommended this in general since negative failure for some exercises involves literally dropping the bar in a position that might be dangerous for you. More often, Mike Mentzer in particular referred to "total failure" as more along the lines of concentric failure. For the vast majority of cases with few exceptions, at most he used a forced rep with a static hold (not necessarily to failure) and then a very slow negative for some but not all exercises in a routine.
              >that's the point.
              You haven't made any points what-so-ever.
              >it contradicts nothing
              It is contrary to your claims. Not only that, have at least basic knowledge contradicts your nonsense assertion.

    • 1 month ago
      Shaman of /fit/

      >.02% difference
      >Doesn't quantify the uncertainty
      Jfc, bullshit science. Just accept that Mentzer was a troubled genius

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >some instagram infographic
      >science
      alright there, champ

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >science
      Whose science, exactly?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >training to failure on an exercise first makes it more effective but also more fatiguing

      this is what that one study found, basically what we already knew

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't give a frick what science says but I trust Mentzer schizos neither

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      homie science can’t even explain how people can smoke cigarettes and live to 120

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a stupid Black person, what does DYEL mean?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      do you enjoy life

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Drop your elbows lower

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do your exercises, Lenny

  10. 1 month ago
    Shaman of /fit/

    Mentzer was running gear, and meth as preworkout. Of course he was a very smart man in addition.

    Personally, I've tried Mentzer-lifting (as I like to call it) before, and honestly, I loved it. Cut gym time from 3 hours to 45 minutes, but it didn't feel like enough volume for a novice so it's one of those things that I think an advanced lifter would appreciate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Cut gym time from 3 hours to 45 minutes
      >3 hours
      Just what the frick are you doing during your sessions?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I think he's saying 3 hours a week to 45 minutes a week. Which would line up 3 fullbodies or 6 30 min ppl workouts or 4 u/l workouts. Generally speaking a natty is not going to be able to do anything for hypertrophy above a sum of 3-4 hours a week. Just cardio/skill work/endurance stuff/stretching ect stuff you're not really going to see muscle growth in any appreciable amount from after the initial stages.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >didn't feel like enough volume for a novice
      If you got stronger, then it was enough volume. If you say you loved it, then I'm guessing you were able to add weight or reps to all your movements. The per-session volume was appropriate, in that case.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      meth is also a good preworkout stack

      >Adult adhd
      >get given ultimate pre workout by default
      See you late losers

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    theres tren in the water

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It works for me and I will keep doing it.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ray Peat talks about this. Training multiple times a week is basically blasting cortisol non-stop which is definitely bad for you. The worst thing you can do is to run long distances though.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It works for me because, as a natty, i was in constant pain and kind of bloated (too much fricking protein also). Switched to 3 or 2 times a week and the gains, even for a 33 year old me, are increasing. Even my gf told me, lol.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stop killing thousands of people and start killing 10 people who matter, that's how you optimize muscle growth.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is what I dont get, please explain where Im wrong bros

    >You need to be really close to failure to make muscles grow
    >Most muscles will take 72 hours
    >Going in without going that hard is worthless

    So wouldnt full body every 72 hours be the best?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      As the weight goes up and you become more able to train more intensely, the exercises take more and more energy leading to workouts where you'd have to pick say legs or pecs to prioritize and everything else gets relegated to pump work because you're exhausted at that point. So it's reasonable to switch to a split so you can train all muscle groups as hard as possible.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Systemic recovery takes longer and fatigue accumulates before you can complete a full body workout if you are training hard enough, leaving whatever you train last to be suboptimal.

      Also if you train hard enough, e.g. eccentric overload, then you can easily experience intense DOMS that last anywhere up to a week. Not that DOMS is required in any way but good luck training through it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Most muscles will take 72 hours
      That depends on how strong you are and how much other work you're doing.
      I like full body. It's convenient. One of the biggest drawbacks in split training is that the different body parts get different amounts of rest.
      E.g. on PPL the forearms and traps get hit 3x per week while the pecs and calves get hit 1x per week, etc. How can you be sure that the muscles that are getting hit more frequently are recovered?
      With Full Body, you can be sure that each body part is getting the same amount of rest and that the entire system is recovered before the next workout.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I hate not getting sore after a while 🙁

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the biggest DYELs I haven experienced are HIT gays

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you're a moronic dyel, because you don't train enough, training frequency is irrelevant, with a slight bias towards higher frequency, what matters is total weekly volume
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30558493/
    >In conclusion, there is strong evidence that resistance training frequency does not significantly or meaningfully impact muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated. Thus, for a given training volume, individuals can choose a weekly frequency per muscle groups based on personal preference.

    https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.00725/full
    >Both C and NC RT induced similar improvements in strength and body composition, and changes in RBC parameters.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28755103/
    >This meta-analysis presents additional evidence regarding a graded dose-response relationship between weekly sets performed and strength gain. The use of MWS and HWS was more effective than LWS, with LWS producing the smallest pre- to post-training strength difference. For novice and intermediate male trainees, the findings suggest that LWSs do not lead to strength gains compared with MWS or HWS training

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0276154
    >Therefore, if trained individuals need higher RT volumes to obtain gains in both strength and muscle mass, alternatives such as increasing RT frequency could be considered. Moreover, when the same TTV is distributed at different weekly frequencies, no additional benefits in increases in strength and muscle mass are observed.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27682004/
    >The results suggest that RT programs performed on three consecutive or nonconsecutive days per week determine similar effects on maximum strength, and body composition.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31260419/
    >In conclusion, muscle strength increment is similar regardless of the experimental conditions studied; however, TOTAL may confer a potentially superior hypertrophic effect.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      muscle physiology directly contradicts all those conclusions

      trained subjects don't need more volume, they need higher motor unit recruitment
      advanced subjects experience more fatigue than beginners or intermediates
      and training volume cannot be the only thing that matters because effort matters and there is a massive diminishing return from volume done in a session or week

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        actual real life data says otherwise and there's nothing linking it to hypertrophy. if anything, it suggests that going to total failure is even a worse idea for advanced subjects

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >actual real life data says otherwise
          it doesn't though
          look at how the greatest natural bodybuilders trained and you will see they train very differently
          some did bro splits, others upper lower or PPL or full body
          some of them very high volume, others very low volume
          some trained to failure, others very far from failure

          so what does the real life data actually tell us?
          well it tells us that volume isn't the driver of hypertrophy because if it was then 100% of bodybuilders would do very high volume
          >if anything, it suggests that going to total failure is even a worse idea for advanced subjects
          no such thing as "total failure"
          there is only failure
          and suggesting training to failure is worse for advanced subjects begs the following question
          why do high volume then if recovery is suddenly a problem?
          high volumes are more fatiguing than lower volumes, they cause more muscle damage and more CNS fatigue and this has been measured repeatedly, so why would advanced subjects suffer from training to failure but not suffer from training with high volume?

          also, if training to failure is so bad why is rest pause or drop sets recommended by the same people promoting high volume training?

          (Fourth study on your list)
          Quite a few of the participants performed better on the 1x per week frequency than on the 3x per week frequency.
          It looks like none of them lost strength, but some of them actually lost cross-sectional area.
          This is why I stated earlier that looking at the participants individual data is important. If you average together everyone’s data, the beginners and roid-users are going to skew that data towards favoring higher frequency work.

          yeah, optimal volume and frequency is largely individual, a lot of studies come to that conculsion. on average, however, frequency is larglely irrelevant compared to overall volume

          none of these studies take into account muscle edema which is always higher with high volume training, not with muscle thickness or even cross sectional area measurements

          bullshit. you can safely train even the next day as long as your overall volume is manageable, e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27682004/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31260419/

          the only way to know what works best is if you see performance improvements, and if you don't see any over the weeks and months ahead nothing else matters the proof is there to see
          there is a reason why almost no one trains the same musculature every day, because there is a limit in how you can train with that frequency
          maybe if you do nothing but concentric repetitions for a single set of 1-5 reps on each exercise you might be able to recover, if you train anything like a bodybuilder you will not recover

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      (Fourth study on your list)
      Quite a few of the participants performed better on the 1x per week frequency than on the 3x per week frequency.
      It looks like none of them lost strength, but some of them actually lost cross-sectional area.
      This is why I stated earlier that looking at the participants individual data is important. If you average together everyone’s data, the beginners and roid-users are going to skew that data towards favoring higher frequency work.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Forgot screencap

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah, optimal volume and frequency is largely individual, a lot of studies come to that conculsion. on average, however, frequency is larglely irrelevant compared to overall volume

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >frequency is larglely irrelevant compared to overall volume
          Frequency is not irrelevant at all. If your frequency is too high, you will get weaker instead of stronger.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            bullshit. you can safely train even the next day as long as your overall volume is manageable, e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27682004/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31260419/

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I didn’t say it was unsafe. I said you’d get weaker. Have you tried full body every day? I have. It made me the weakest I’ve ever been.
              >first study
              Has the same number of rest days between the two groups. The difference is that the rest days are concentrated. They’re doing the same number of workouts in a given span of time.
              >second study
              >schoenfield
              >behind a paywall.
              Lmao. Do you have the full text somewhere, or did you just read the abstract? You just read the abstract, didn’t you? Typical.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I didn’t say it was unsafe. I said you’d get weaker.
                are you completely unable to grasp any slightly figurative use of language?
                > Have you tried full body every day?
                of course. e.g. 5 consecutive days per week full body (Dan John's template I think) and actually made decent strength gains on it
                >Has the same number of rest days between the two groups. The difference is that the rest days are concentrated. They’re doing the same number of workouts in a given span of time.
                no shit, they still had workouts on consecutive days
                >second study
                >schoenfield
                >behind a paywall.
                >Lmao. Do you have the full text somewhere, or did you just read the abstract? You just read the abstract, didn’t you? Typical.
                does the idea of literally pasting the title of the article to google is so far beyond your faculties that you can't even fathom anyone doing it lmao?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the idea of literally pasting the title of the article to google is so far beyond your faculties that you can't even fathom anyone doing it lmao
                If you had read it, then you would have posted that instead of the pubmed link. But you didn't. Don't BS me.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                bullshit. pubmed and similar sites is the standard way to post articles like this, otherwise people like you would try to attack the source. if you're too stupid to try to google the title, that's on you

                https://i.imgur.com/HcShpjq.png

                >already did
                You never did.
                >you need to meet certain volume to experience noticable gains (although it's pretty low)
                Yeah. It's one set for noticeable gains. Zero sets if you pin enough test.
                >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27433992/
                Read the actually study and look at what the studies reviewed. BTW, you should be posting the full papers uploaded to researchgate or elsewhere instead of the pubmed abstracts for the purpose of intellectual honesty
                >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305455324_Dose-response_relationship_between_weekly_resistance_training_volume_and_increases_in_muscle_mass_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis
                Again we have several problems. The vast majority of studies are in untrained individuals (hence worthless). There are really only three that use "trained" individuals.
                >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232177076_The_Effect_of_Weight_Training_Volume_on_Hormonal_Output_and_Muscular_Size_and_Function
                Three sets is as good as 6-12 sets is what's claimed by the authors. This is study claims failure is achieved using RM as a predictor. RM loads as estimates or tested are inaccurate generally or become inaccurate. In general you don't know if you hit failure unless you test it and find out you cannot do more than one rep or are experienced enough with bar speed that you can fairy accurately know it's coming. They might have been in 2-3RIR the whole time.
                >https://www2.ufjf.br/faefid//files/2009/07/3sets-training.pdf
                "Failure" is claimed to have been trained to in the conclusion. However, there is a reason to be skeptical about that as estimates were used for rep ranges used with loading. Same critique as last paper.

                >You never did.
                dunno, try reading again?
                >Read the actually study and look at what the studies reviewed. BTW, you should be posting the full papers uploaded to researchgate or elsewhere instead of the pubmed abstracts for the purpose of intellectual honesty
                you realize pubmed has links to full articles, right?
                >Yeah. It's one set for noticeable gains. Zero sets if you pin enough test.
                and yet another wild claim pulled out of the ass, when directly presented with evidence to the contrary, then, instead of trying to substantiate his claims in any way, tries to nitpick it, badly e.g. containing studies on untrained individuals (even though studies on untrained individuals still have merit and often present vastly different results when comparing methodologies, have their separate place as can be more relevant to beginner trainees, the reviews contained studies on trained and studies on trained individuals presented reach similar conslusions), when these studies are still the best ones available on the subject. when unable to nitpick anything, dishonestly tries to dismiss it as, everyone already knew that training to failure is not necessary to grow, even though it not what it's saying, instead it directly contradicts his claim that training to failure is more effective. then tries to speak about intelectual honesty lmao. sport science studies are rarely perfect, but it beats pulling out inane unbacked claims out of the ass. if you want to present evidence to the contrary, provide studies with better methodology. not even gonna bother wasting time reading the rest.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >people like you would try to attack the source
                If I was the type to attack the source, then I would still do so after being forced to google it. Just admit that you only read the abstract.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >people like you would try to attack the source
                If I was the type to attack the source, then I would still do so after being forced to google it. Just admit that you only read the abstract.

                Oh, yeah, aside from that. I skimmed through it (not going to read it tonight) and I had trouble finding any raw data on the individuals. The researchers couldn't even bother to plot the subjects' progress on a graph for us to look at. They just averaged all the progress together and said "wow, 8.5%, will you look at that". What if there was someone that actually lost strength, but that was overshadowed by others that made up a positive average? Wouldn't that be important to include?
                I'm not blaming you for this, I just think Schoenfeld is being lazy. They had the raw data punched into a spreadsheet, otherwise they couldn't have generated the graphs, but they chose not to include it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2015/05000/Dose_Response_of_1,_3,_and_5_Sets_of_Resistance.25.aspx
                Schoenfeld claims these were all trained, though the lifts of some of them suggest some were untrained or novices. The paper also says some of them were untrained. Likewise, there were oddities with what little is shown in the averages. Raw numbers for each group are fairly similar with only a stark difference in the shoulder press group with "5RM." There's an oddity with the 20RM in that the control group on average gained strength. 5 set group was only favored overall in the 20RM group. FFM increases were favored in the 3 and 5 set groups. However, one criticism possible here is that Sarcoplasm accumulates more in high volume. That is 3 and 5 sets were effectively pump work as in the west coast pump and fluff lifters were often anecdotally said to have puffy muscles that went away after a couple weak while the strength oriented east coast lifter has dense muscles that stay with them for a long time. However, the smallest guy in the 1 set group based on the confidence interval (no raw data provided) gained as almost much muscle mass as the biggest and smallest guys in the 3 and 5 set groups. Like the previous papers, we have the problem where there is no reason to assume anyone is training to failure. On top of that, most of them weren't training anywhere near 1RM.

                >does the idea of literally pasting the title of the article to google is so far beyond your faculties that you can't even fathom anyone doing it lmao?
                If you're going to link it, you can past the article title to google before copypasting. Let me guess, you're just mindlessly watching Nippard videos and ripping the links from there while trying to pretend to be smarter than you actually are?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Have you tried full body every day? I have. It made me the weakest I’ve ever been.
                This is what I don't understand about anti HIT posters. If they truly go hard every day they will be constantly beaten up. The one time I took a week off and came back from this grind I found everything light.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >goes into gym
    >works out for less than 30 minutes
    >comes back 5-8 days later
    >repeat for months
    >outperforms everyone training there 4 hours per day

    Can you blame them for hating him?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >works out for less than 30 minutes
      Works out for hours doing multiple sets, lies about it but is outed by multiple people.
      >comes back 5-8 days later
      Comes back the next day
      >repeat for months
      With a lot of volume
      >outperforms everyone training there 4 hours per day
      Never wins an Olympia. No one outside of niche bodybuilding fans even know who he is

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        autismos just need some moronic homosexual shit to spam like usual, it's insane to me that anyone believes he "barely" works out looking like that. but then again there are normie tards who think people like sam sulek are natty.. so dipshits will believe anything

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this is completely bullshit because the most common occurence of this happening is with legs and nobody who does legs once a week gets big legs fast, or even has big legs in general

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The big Mentzer success story, Dorian Yates, used four training sessions per week. Are there other famous HIT users?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      no, because its bullshit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Name me anyone who built their mass using HIT. Also Dorian Was already an Olympian by the time Mentzer started riding his coat tails, and even then Dorian still didn't train like him

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Mr America Heart

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Train once every 4 to 7 days.
    No
    >Stop overtraining
    No
    >This is why you're still DYEL.
    No U

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >that's the whole point, together with it not being more effective
    Doing more than one set per exercise according to
    >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232177076_The_Effect_of_Weight_Training_Volume_on_Hormonal_Output_and_Muscular_Size_and_Function
    is not less effective than 2-3 sets per exercise even without failure. Even
    >https://www2.ufjf.br/faefid//files/2009/07/3sets-training.pdf
    with no muscular failure at all still has one set trainees gaining strength and muscle mass. However, in general training to failure is more effective than not training to failure given the same volume. At best there is a contention over 1RIR, 0RIR, and failure. Second, going to failure may still be better in general if any good additional data actually comes out. Even if not, it will still be better conditionally than non-failure as you can train harder to require less volume.
    >it's addressed by most of the studies ITT,
    It's not addressed by any of studies ITT as none of them actually went to failure.
    >absolute failure
    There is no such thing as this straw man absolute failure v. failure. There is only muscular failure which is where you attempt to do one more rep and find out you cannot complete it. Any other """failure""" is just the trainee giving up when the exercise gets too hard or stopping at an arbitrary point. The few studies that do show that muscular failure is generally better than no failure. At most they indicate that similar results can be obtained with 1-2RIR.

    So stop being a pussy homosexual and start training to failure.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i actually have been, and on 500mg test alone im hitting 1/2/3/4 pretty easily basically doing nothing all week

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Going to the gym is the only thing keeping me sane so yes I will keep overtraining

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    as a long time lifter I'm stalling just as hard on a low volume as on a high volume routine, but the low volume one takes less time and my joints ache less, so why should I bother with doing more?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you need higher motor unit recruitment and lower the fatigue you experience from your training
      and you probably also have to reduce the degree of atrophy you experience between sessions

      the only way to break plateaus as a trained lifter is to reduce fatigue while increasing muscle activation in order to access muscle fibers that have yet to be maxed out in size

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mike said he trained for 3 hours a week in some interview.
    You could do PPL 6 times a week with 30 minute sessions at a high intensity.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *