some site about weights

[ged]

http://www.cyberpump.com/training/trainhard/getbig.html

a lot of these agree with advice i've heard on this forum... but one confuses me - "Perform no more than 2-3 sets per bodypart (not including warmups). "

i've been doing pretty much a workout posted here by someone called 'destrous9' or something similar (sorry destrous, it was a long time ago) in which i do, for instance, 4 sets benchpress, 4 sets dumbbell press, 6 sets military press, 4 sets closegrip benchpress for pecs, shoulders/triceps day.

how good is that statement? and the page?

what about the whole website in general?

[Kope]

Depends on your goals.

IF your goal is muscle mass, then it's good info.

If your goal is strength with endurance then it's not the best advice.

All in all, not a bad site.

[ged]

thanks for the comments.

im not sure of the correlation between only 3 sets per bodypart and building mass, with more sets meaning more endurance... ive always thought that endurance was trained for with more reps within the sets, and mass was trained for by totally exhausting each muscle?

[ged]

bump

[IronFist]

You MUST progress in your training either in number of reps or weight. Strive for improvement every workout even if it is a partial rep.

Hmmm... wonder if he's ever heard of periodization? Or maybe he meant the above advice as it pertains to each individual periodization cycle.

Brooks Kubik HIT it right on the head when he said that.

Oh no. "HIT"??? I hope this isn't HIT-jedi propaganda. Didn't Brooks Kubik write that book "Dinosaur Training" that Ironmind sells? I don't think he's a HIT jedi.

Workout no more than two times per week. For example, upper body one day and lower the other workout. If a full body workout is desired, then only perform one workout per week.

Oh geez.

Perform no more than 2-3 sets per bodypart (not including warmups).

This sounds like HIT **** to me. Boooo.

Carry each set to muscular failure. If you have a partner, perform two forced reps every other week.

Excuse me?!

Never go below 5 reps. Going lower than 5 reps creates a higher potential for injury.

No it doesn't. I've heard injury typically occurs at higher reps as you approach failure when the stabilizing muscles fail before the ones you're working.

And finally, to directly contradict this, you can build muscle using MORE than 2-3 sets per bodypart, ONLY 5 reps per set, NOT working to failure, and working out MORE than 2 times per week!

Hahaha.

Some of the "12 steps" on that website seem to be based in old weightlifting myths and not in science. Oh well. Whatever works, I guess.

IronFist

[IronFist]

Oh ****. I just went to the home page, cyberpump.com (http://www.cyberpump.com) and it's all like "home of the HIT training." Booo. You must avoid that site and it's advice. Uh, unless you like overtraining and not gaining.

IronFist

[ged]

thanks for the advice ironfist...

you're quite anti-HIT... a friend of mine just researched about it, he's full of praise for it. a few things about that page seemed BS to me, but some seemed OK for certain goals. so these guys overtrain? with only 2-3 sets per bodypart? ill confess ive been lazy, and havent looked at all that main page (there were so many links)... im just going on the FAQ, and one or two other bits of info.

on a tangent, i was squatting today in the gym, and some huge guy came up and did upright row with what i was squatting.

[ged]

i found this on the main site

3. Perform 1 to 3 sets of each exercise

In order for a muscle to increase in size/strength it must be fatigued or overloaded in order for an adaptive response to occur. It really doesn't matter whether you fatigue your muscles in one set or several sets - as long as your muscles experience a certain level of exhaustion.

When performing multiple sets, the cumulative effect of each successive set makes deeper inroads into your muscle thereby creating muscular fatigue; when performing a single set to failure, the cumulative effect of each successive repetition makes deeper inroads into your muscle thereby creating muscular fatigue. Numerous research studies have shown that there are no significant differences when performing either one, two or three sets of an exercise, provided, of course, that one is done with an appropriate level of intensity (i.e. to the point of concentric muscular failure).

However, as there are always exceptions to the rule. But, as a general guideline the vast majority of people will never need more than 1-3 sets


'numerous research studies" sounds a bit vague. but are they trying to tell me that doing 1 set will have the same effect as doing 6 sets? that i wont be sorer the next day?

[IronFist]

"Numerous research studies" have also proven that there's no benefit in going to failure vs. not going to failure.

IronFist

[ewallace]

Got any links to sites you frequent?

[ged]

going to failure on benchpress might be 8 reps for me.

you say that doing 6 reps will have the same results.

why not 4 reps then? or 2?

[IronFist]

Originally posted by ged
going to failure on benchpress might be 8 reps for me.

you say that doing 6 reps will have the same results.

why not 4 reps then? or 2?

ged, as far as I know, the "don't go under 5 reps" thing was referring to the weight being used. I think he meant don't use a weight that you can't lift at least 5 times.

So as in your example, if going to failure on bench is 8 reps for you, doing 6 reps is only 3/4 as much volume so it's not exactly the same amount of stress placed on your body. It would be possible to increase the weight, however, so that 6 reps was now failure. Or 4, or 2, depending on the weight.

The thing about injuries, if you're using a weight for say, squat, and you can do 20 reps with it, you're probably more likely to get injured doing that than say, using a weight so heavy you can only do 3 reps and doing 3 reps with it. In the 20 reps, your stabilizing muscles, such as your lower back, will probably give out before your legs, resulting in injury. With a heavier weight, say a 3RM, you will fail due to nervous system fatigue and not muscular fatigue (in other words, you won't have that lactic acid buildup burn that you get with high rep work), and you will not get injured because your stabilizing muscles won't give out (in theory).

Uh, I hope that makes sense. I only went into that whole injury thing to further clarify what I meant when I contradicted his "5 reps and less leads to injury" statement.

IronFist

[SevenStar]

I think he means failure in the sense of absolute failure - where a spotter has to help to rack the weight, or where you must drop it. If you can rack the weight on your own, then that wasn't complete failure.

[IronFist]

Originally posted by ewallace
Got any links to sites you frequent?

The only fitness sites I really go to are this one, Anabolic Extreme (http://www.anabolicextreme.com), and DragonDoor (Pavel) (http://www.dragondoor.com). I don't really hang out at Anabolic Extreme that much anymore, tho. In fact, I don't really have much time for any of them anymore. Stupid job :)

IronFist

[ged]

ironfist - sorry about the mixup. my example about benchpressing was meant to be a question about your comment

"Numerous research studies" have also proven that there's no benefit in going to failure vs. not going to failure.

IronFist

im curious about how not going to failure can have the same benefit as going to failure.

do you disagree/agree with their idea that 1 set has the same effect as 3 sets?

sevenstar - thats how i usually try and train with most movements, except for deadlifts. would you advise against or for that for building mass and strength?

im just looking over that quote i posted again... the wording's a bit vague. maybe he means that if you do 1 set to 'absolute failure', by your definition sevenstar, as compared to 3 or so sets not going to failure?