>training to failure
>time under tension
Are these essential for hypertrophy? If I do 3 sets aiming for 15 and by the last set I can only get to 10 before failing, is that good for hypertrophy?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
End of the road, pal. Time to shut up and suck up (my dick and balls).
Let's go, no stalling.
Your relentless namegayging needs to stop. None of your comments are good enough to warrant drawing attention to yourself in this manner. If you want to continue posting garbage, do so as an anon like most other posters. You will never be an iconic IST poster.
I could easily overpower you and turn you into my gf btw.
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
you're giving him attention
just train hard on a consistent basis, science based lifters are a buncha nerds after all
you'll end up doing girly lifts or looking geriatric focusing on the eccentric @ the gym
>science based lifters are a buncha nerds after all
theyre not nerds. everyone is just a fricking influencer now so theyre all desperate to come up with some attention grabbing bullshit and will make up whatever to go along with it.
No 15 reps is too many do like 8 a set for hyper . 15 is endurance shit. For now do 3x8 you can add another set if you feel like it. Just pause for a second at the top for tension if you want . It all plays a part and helps buy you do t need to do all this right away if you're new
Also you want to fail around 8 or 9 and yes go to failure don't listen to dweebs that say otherwise
15-30 reps is sufficient for hypertrophy is you are actually reaching concentric failure within such a rep range. You will innervate all your type 2 fibers doing so and exhaust them (that's what happens during the last few reps). The only problem is that it's relatively inefficient. Whereas failure within 8-12 reps is much more efficient.
>No 15 reps is too many do like 8 a set for hyper . 15 is endurance shit.
Are you natty?
Then going to failure will take too much time to recover, you could go just short of it instead.
Your reps are dropping set by sweet because you don't rest enough in between, that's good for time saving, bad for strength, and neutral for hypertrophy (that's more about how many reps short of failure you go).
If you're doing the same amount of reps every set you aren't training remotely close to failure
Ask me how I know you didn't do the program.
>2 RIR
>1 RIR
>0 RIR
All with same reps, sounds close to failure to me.
>Training to failure
This maximizes hypertrophy.
>time under tension
It's not the most important thing. What matters is that your form is good and the cadence is slow enough that you eliminate any momentum and jerking (keeping constant force output through the entire exercise) to ensure the exercise is both relatively safe and effective, so something like 3-4 seconds on both the positive and negatives depending on the range of motion of a particular exercise. Outside of that time is not a big concern unless you're doing isometrics. Then it's the time to reach static failure.
> If I do 3 sets aiming for 15 and by the last set I can only get to 10 before failing, is that good for hypertrophy?
Anything after the first set to failure yields negligible benefits and only impacts your recovery time by increasing inflammation and muscle damage (neither are necessary for hypertrophy). The stimulus for growth occurred on the first set when you reached concentric failure. That's if you actually reached concentric failure correctly and didn't give up before believing you reached failure.
>Are you natty?
>Then going to failure will take too much time to recover, you could go just short of it instead.
You will not take too much time to recover. You will only take the necessary time to recover.
>Your reps are dropping set by sweet because you don't rest enough in between
No. The reps are dropping by set, if you are going to concentric failure, because all your muscle fibers have been effectively exhausted and it takes at least three days for your muscle to regain strength afterwords. This is regardless of rest time between sets. That's of course considering that you're only damaging the muscle on that second or third set (hence just making it weaker, whereas the first set already introduced all the metabolic stress needed for hypertrophy).
>You will only take the necessary time to recover.
Obviously. You aren't looking at the opportunity costs.
You could train with 2x the frequency, if you didn't go to failure, and would have a better hormonal profile - afaik we don't have a full study of how muscle protein synthesis changes when you go to failure, but we know cortisol spikes up and test is depressed.
If you're roiding, who cares, you have more, and you'll recover so quickly you can go high frequency while going to failure, but for a natty guy?
That's silly, keep a rep or 2 in the tank.
>but we know cortisol spikes up and test is depressed.
not really. science around this stuff widely hasn't been reproduced
You might not like it, but all the studies we have say that non-failure protocols are more effective at building strength and mass, while a number of roiders will tell you that failure is more effective.
Admittedly, it's not the best studied facet of sports science, studies are few, but the pattern should make you think - what's the difference between the roidfreaks and the general study subject population?
>but all the studies we have say that non-failure protocols are more effective at building strength and mass
Any studies you can point to do not show such things when you actually read them carefully. At best, the author concludes that because they're part of an organization that has as its official position that wasting your time in the gym is better for growth. There are also plenty of problems with those studies as there are often few if any controls for cadence, form, etc. There is also no guarantee that the authors even understood what concentric failure means in practice or that their subjects actually went to failure and didn't stop short. In reality, the majority of stimulus for growth comes from effort. The maximum effort during exercise comes from that last rep after which you cannot complete another rep with correct form and good cadence. Seeing how low quality each rep is for most gymgoers and average researcher is, the likelihood is that they are far for providing any meaningful results.
>You might not like it, but all the studies we have say that non-failure protocols are more effective at building strength and mass
No, they don't
Studies in exercise science are also mostly meaningless
t. credentialed exercise scientist
you can say "You don't like it" all you want, go get the degree and you can tell me something.
>mostly meaningless
Still kinda the best that we have, the choice is between badly planned studies that don't control for the same things vs pure broscience and anecdotes.
>Still kinda the best that we have
No, not really. Smoke and mirrors aren't better than a village of elders.
I am a person who respects science to an extreme level and I tell you this...because "studies" of the contemporary era largely do not represent scientific thought
if you are truly a scientist you will agree
PS you are generally wrong and a recent meta-analysis states to go to failure if you're trained.
>and a recent meta-analysis states to go to failure if you're trained
I just have missed it, will look for it and come back.
>Smoke and mirrors aren't better than a village of elders.
Multiple sources with different goals and economic incentives are better than a single group with shared goals and incentives.
As far as it being science, yeah, it's almost offensive to call it that, it's just not as bad as a "trust me bro"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4731492
it doesn't matter what any one study or meta-analysis says. it really doesn't
we can't perform these experiments on humans suitably to discover these things as it is not allowed by ethics
No trust me bro from a bro is better than listening to the dyel believing any literal "study" that came out and saying shit like duuur itttsss like best we have owell better belive it!! Lmfao. Trust the guys with twig arms !! They wrote a study!
>You could train with 2x the frequency, if you didn't go to failure
You don't need to train with 2x the frequency. It will not yield any additional benefits.
>afaik we don't have a full study of how muscle protein synthesis changes when you go to failure, but we know cortisol spikes up
Cortisol spikes in all sufficiently intense physical activity. It's simply stress.
>test is depressed
Like for five minutes.
>If you're roiding, who cares, you have more, and you'll recover so quickly you can go high frequency while going to failure, but for a natty guy?
There's no need for high frequency.
>That's silly, keep a rep or 2 in the tank.
And that's a waste of time. Might as well not even lift at that point. Fundamentally exercise is performed to increase muscle mass and improve health. Why waste all this time for Weider magazine pseudoscience like 3x10 or needing to go to the gym for two hours a day five days a week when you could just take one set to failure with both good cadence and good form and spend no more than an hour in the gym each week? You will grow according to your genetic limits and in the long term, high frequency, lots of sets, and spending huge amounts of time in the gym will not get you any bigger or healthier than you would by simply exercising the most efficient way possible.
BTW, the only way to know how many reps in reserve you have is to go directly to concentric failure.
I never said to spend all that time in the gym tho.
You can get all the simulation your body can use with 3 to 6ish sets, going almost to failure. You'll recognize it because your cadence will slow down massively, but you'll still be able to do the rep.
It would be great if you stopped trying to sabotage natty trainers with this protocol for roiders, but whatever, at least now if they read the thread they'll know, and will be able to draw their own conclusions.
>You can get all the simulation your body can use with 3 to 6ish sets, going almost to failure
No. You don't. Why? Because most people don't go to failure in the first place and hence have no clue as to whether or not they're almost to failure. The best you can assume is that you're just giving up on the set when you reach a certain number of reps or the reps become too hard to continue at the prior cadence
Besides, why waste time with 3-6 sets and the associated rest periods between them when you can just do one set of an exercise, go to failure, then move on to the next exercise take it to failure, and so on and get out of the gym in less than a half hour while needing to spend no more than two days per week in the gym for maximal results in the long term? Your joints will be better off if you do only one set to failure with a 4/4 cadence and good form instead of 3-6 sets.
>You'll recognize it because your cadence will slow down massively
You can still get quite a few reps out of an exercise when your cadence slows down. Much more than you expect. In essence, it's just stopping the exercise because you can't throw around the weights anymore.
>It would be great if you stopped trying to sabotage natty trainers with this protocol for roiders
>protocol for roiders
And here you are advocating for the typical routines used and shilled by roiders since Weider has his magazines.
>Besides, why waste time with 3-6 sets and the associated rest periods between them when you can just do one set of an exercise, go to failure, then move on to the next exercise take it to failure, and so on and get out of the gym in less than a half hour while needing to spend no more than two days per week in the gym for maximal results in the long term?
because we have pretty much a mountain of evidence indicating it's best to do sets. i'm
this is one thing there is evidence for
>because we have pretty much a mountain of evidence indicating it's best to do sets
No. You don't. You just have opinions of some authors who state the current official position of their licensing board even though their data doesn't even show it. The rest is just bro science and the desire of people to preserve tradition.
>You'll recognize it because your cadence will slow down massively, but you'll still be able to do the rep.
If I stopped benching because my cadence slowed down a lot, I'd be doing 3 reps instead of 6+ which would put me in 3 or more reps in reserve.
>Cortisol spikes in all sufficiently intense physical activity. It's simply stress.
It does not SPIKE. It elevates. He says it spikes, or goes higher when training to failure, and he is hinting that it goes to high.
>Like for five minutes.
This is like the above. Yes after workout test is depressed but then goes back to baseline and perhaps dips over first. But again he is talking about training to failure to much decreases it long term.
>You don't need to train with 2x the frequency. It will not yield any additional benefits.
With how many people claim that it does yield additional benefits we could say that at this point that is the common consensus.
>>That's silly, keep a rep or 2 in the tank.
>And that's a waste of time. Might as well not even lift at that point
This is just plain fricking stupid.
>Fundamentally exercise is performed to increase muscle mass and improve health
"exercise" is poorly defined term to use in this context. All exercise is not FUNDAMENTALLY performed to increase muscle mass (or to improve health for that matter).
>Why waste all this time
Ask your self this.
>when you could just take one set to failure
Oh right.. HIIT memelord.
Post arms and timestamp bet they look small and shit/fat. Always train to failure
Building muscle is all about getting a big pump, getting blood into the muscle.
A pump is just vasodilation. It is not correlated with hypertrophy in general. The only possible way to gain muscle through such a method is to pump your system with enough anabolic compounds and nutrients before hand much like Serge Nubret did and have the genetics that let you gain muscle simply by going to the gym and looking at the weights. But then the pump isn't doing anything there other than assisting drug-induced hypertrophy.
Honestly, aiming for failure is like the one thing needed for people to reach sufficient intensity. You need to be a very seasoned lifter to be able to train with 2 RIR and shit like that. Just go to failure on every set
I did a couple weeks of time under tension to try it out from my usual methods. I found that after training for those 2 weeks I got way better mind muscle connection and had more muscle activation plus better pumps. I just increased rep speed up a little bc going to slow I couldn’t get too many out (like 8 and at the end of the set like 6)
Training to failure is good. I've been training to failure for two years, I am getting slow and steady gains, which is fantastic with my natty ass 12 repping 3 plate rows 2 plate ohps etc
Tut should be kept around 30-45 seconds active contraction per set. So like if you are squatting you count seconds you're actually contracting quads to lift the weight. It's too autistic so it usually amounts to eyeballing and doing way more reps on tiny rom/tut exercises like wrist curls. But I personally found doing 15 reps on squats/bench and 12 reps on deads/ohp best for me some reason.
i only train to success