people who look good
>bro split,high reps,time under tension,bro science,1-2 min breaks,dropsets supersts etc.,isolation
people who look like shit
>science,strength training,scientific routines,rpe,% of 1rm,low reps,5 min breaks,90% of training is compounds
why?
Other urls found in this thread:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
researchgate.net
researchgate.net
twitter.com
Cause god hates the ugly.
Bot thread. Jannies, cmon
First category has good genetics, the other doesn't
based God is a based God
Broscience > science
In all seriousness though the bro splits and intensity techniques work. I don’t trust most the shit coming from scientific studies because they are done by grad students trying to get something published. Most are done in under a quarter or semester with little supervision. For looks follow a bro split.
For performance look at anything the Soviets put out Because they had complete control over their athletes and conducted them over years.
Exactly this, there is absolutely nothing more pathetic in this world than graduate level research, except for the faggots that are producing it. This cock sucking obsession with %rep programs is fucking disgusting. But the reddit fucks love it because it reminds them of Pokémon
That's some real autistic logic there. Even if they're just grad students trying to get something published, they'd have a much easier time getting through peer review with the correct info rather than less correct info. There's no grand conspiracy to suppress bro science in academia champ, there's literally nothing to gain from that
First group has the genetics, athletic lifestyle and inherent T level that doesn't force them to try as hard
Second group doesn't see results so they dig
Also this somewhat, if you try hard you will see results. Diet and natural T are the deciding factors in how good those results are
how much did dolph weigh here?
not true
all the actually huge and ripped dudes i see in the gym do BOTH
>looking good when you've only done a brosplit
No, they are just thin.
You do SS to get your strength high and bulk for 6-9 months, then you cut, then you do SS style compounds followed by high rep as accessory work
Bro science is actually field tested over decades by many many types of people, it works.
The other shit is new and not tested, its the same as when they say sugar kills you, and tomorrow they say its good for you.
Bro science = Yas Forums Chad
certified science = reddit bearded betamale
I agree. The best gains I made were when I was using a brosplit. I had days in there that used some low rep work on compounds but I looked my best doing brosplit stuff. Last year I transitioned into using 5/3/1 exclusively for a year. It sucked. Yes, I saw strength gains but it wasn't satisfying and I got fat. Also I'm in the military so we do a bunch of crossfit/cardio all the time. Zero translation from pure strength work into doing a shitload of push-ups or pullups. Now I do a full body high rep bodybuilding split. I have the muscular endurance to do a shitload of reps on calisthenics exercises and I'm not broken all the time from fucking up a squat or bench press. I basically go in and go hard doing exercises I like and get a pump. I've recomped from 20% bf down to 14% and stayed around 190 lbs at 6'. Fuck sciencefag bloatlords, if they want to keep doing it fine but still fuck them for leading me astray for a year.
EXACTLY! Thank you, literally every Chad in existence does a brosplit and has no fucking clue what SS and all that other gay shit is.
Janny, you missed this one
Dolph is 6'5 so I'm thinking he's about 240lbs
Because you have to “trick” and shock your muscles, that’s what Arnold says. Your first example obviously does more of this
Because they're not training with the same goals. The bottom is largely strength training, the top is largely hypertrophy. The rest is genetics and gear.
TICK TICK BOOM
A lot of the popular studies are done by Brad Schoenfeld who uses his own research to try and compete in natty bodybuilding circuits.
That said, you need a good strength base to do hypertrophy and a lot of these new lifters jump straight in and try to make gains with their 10lbs dumbbells.
Wrong
he cant keep getting away
>why?
The categories you've distinguished attract two different types of people.
Those who WANT to look good vs those who would probably like to look good but don't want their bench to drop 5lbs when they cut.
>those who would probably like to look good but don't want their bench to drop 5lbs when they cut.
This one hurts
I can't stand watching my lifts drop
Their bench is gonna drop more than that on a cut
Not necessarily, but that's the fucking point. They'd rather permabulk or be in some builtfat stasis than lean out and potentially lose strength.
>Not necessarily
Of course. Have you never done a cut?
>science supporting strength training is science
>science supporting hypertrophy growth is broscience
kys baiting fag
Yeah. Sounds like you fucked yourself over if you couldn't maintain your lifts.
You haven't? I thought as much.
So basically you're fucking retarded and a complete faggot, not to mention weak as hell. Got it. Get off my Yas Forums.
What's that? You don't lift and were just baiting all along? Got it, my bad for responding to you.
Protip all the guys that look good doing brosplit started with a base lifting heavy.
Let me fix that
People who look good
> juice
People who don’t look good
> no juice
It so happens dumb people do juice usually cuz they don’t know about the consequences. Dumb people also usually do dumb broscience shit
This fucker was at MIT on a Fulbright scholarship. And he’s 6' 5".
I barely got through high school and am 5' 9".
mhhmmmm everyone gather around, i have an announcement to make
FUCK ZIPPERHEADS
no conspiracy, just incompetence
very true
this notion for example that a given muscle only grows for 16-24 hours after training it in resistance trained people is complete and utter fucking bullshit yet it's repeated over and over again by laymen because of exercise "science"
There is not even a good reason as to why a "strength base" is relevant for building muscle, as long as you fatigue the muscle enough all is irrelevant.
According to brad himself almost every single competitive natural bodybuilder uses a brosplit.
not just that, strengthfags are almost always incredibly imbalanced with small upper bodies and calves.
Building strength is key for all lift routines. Make your neurological adaptations, make some beginner gains and then go ham on the stuff you really want to work on.
>There is not even a good reason as to why a "strength base" is relevant for building muscle, as long as you fatigue the muscle enough all is irrelevant.
>According to brad himself almost every single competitive natural bodybuilder uses a brosplit.
Brad uses a full body 5 day high frequency split.
The reason you want high strength is because it means you can get greater intensity with less wasted sets in regards to volume. Basically the quality of each set goes up.
>Brad uses a full body 5 day high frequency split.
no he doesn't and he never has, you must be confusing him for someone else
>The reason you want high strength is because it means you can get greater intensity with less wasted sets in regards to volume. Basically the quality of each set goes up.
that's not a good reason and makes 0 sense
muscle only knows tension, intensity means proximity to muscular failure not absolute loads being moved, muscles grow just as much with 80% 1RM as with 30% 1RM if trained to failure.
Strength is not relevant, but increases in strength are usually a good sign that you are recovering well.
>intensity means proximity to muscular failure not absolute loads being moved
You should look into some text related to how muscle fibers are recruited and shit like Henneman's size principle.
The strongest muscle fibers, with the most potential for growth, are not recruited until the very end of sets lasting 10+reps, meaning that they get substantially less reps compared to a set where 10 or less reps are performed where those same fibers are recruited earlier (or even from the beginning of the set) because the greater need for strength.
So if you were able to do 12 reps, your highest tier fibers would have only been recruited for the last 3-4 reps, at a lower weight/tension/intensity. If you were only able to perform 8 reps, you would have recruited those same fibers for more total reps and it would have been a greater stimulus because the tension was greater.
>muscles grow just as much with 80% 1RM as with 30% 1RM if trained to failure
Any study that finds this was probably done in beginners who have no experience.
>no he doesn't and he never has, you must be confusing him for someone else
You're right. I went back and checked. Eric Helms is the one doing the 5 day full body split and also does natty body building shows.
See:
To add, type 2 fibers are harder to recruit and respond better to higher amounts of load which means more results with less wasted sets since we still need to deal with lactic acid build up meaning we can only reasonably pour so many sets into a workout before we're not really doing meaningful work.
>You should look into some text related to how muscle fibers are recruited and shit like Henneman's size principle.
the closer you are to muscular failure the more fast twitch muscle fibers you are recruiting, all there is to it
>The strongest muscle fibers, with the most potential for growth, are not recruited until the very end of sets lasting 10+reps, meaning that they get substantially less reps compared to a set where 10 or less reps are performed where those same fibers are recruited earlier (or even from the beginning of the set) because the greater need for strength.
Yes, meaning that muscle growth is the same if not stronger on higher rep sets, it's not like the first reps of 10-20 rep sets are using 0 muscle.
>So if you were able to do 12 reps, your highest tier fibers would have only been recruited for the last 3-4 reps, at a lower weight/tension/intensity. If you were only able to perform 8 reps, you would have recruited those same fibers for more total reps and it would have been a greater stimulus because the tension was greater.
Wrong, it's a spectrum not an on or off switch, the last 5-8 reps of a given set are the ones that stimulate significant growth in resistance trained men and they are reached on any level of resistance as long as you reach muscular failure.
>Any study that finds this was probably done in beginners who have no experience.
and there's not a single study that shows a high load low rep training setup promotes more muscle growth in untrained or trained subjects than low load high rep training to failure.
While not a formal study, broscience has shown better gains with heavy ass weight than people who don't use it, regardless of volume.
Or are we going to pretend the chick doing 20+ rep sets has the same hypertrophy as any (natty included) bodybuilder doing it using a lower reps and higher weight?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Fifteen men (21±1 years; BMI=24.1±0.8 kg/m2) performed 4 sets of unilateral leg extension exercise at different exercise loads and/or volumes: 90% of repetition maximum (1RM) until volitional failure (90FAIL), 30% 1RM work-matched to 90%FAIL (30WM), or 30% 1RM performed until volitional failure (30FAIL). Infusion of [ring-13C6] phenylalanine with biopsies was used to measure rates of mixed (MIX), myofibrillar (MYO), and sarcoplasmic (SARC) protein synthesis at rest, and 4 h and 24 h after exercise. Exercise at 30WM induced a significant increase above rest in MIX (121%) and MYO (87%) protein synthesis at 4 h post-exercise and but at 24 h in the MIX only. The increase in the rate of protein synthesis in MIX and MYO at 4 h post-exercise with 90FAIL and 30FAIL was greater than 30WM, with no difference between these conditions; however, MYO remained elevated (199%) above rest at 24 h only in 30FAIL.
researchgate.net
>40% 1RM as effective as 60-80%
researchgate.net
>In conclusion, high- and low-repetition (low and high load,respectively) training paradigms elicit a comparable stimulusfor the accretion of skeletal muscle mass when resistanceexercise is performed until volitional failure. The currentfindings taken together with previous reports (1, 20, 28) showthat these effects are not contingent upon training status orstudy design. Increases in lean body mass, as an indirectmeasure of muscle mass, and muscle fiber CSA, a directmeasure of muscle area, occurred in both LR and HR groupswith no differences between groups.
looks like you're wrong
Think about who does these studies and who runs them. The people who do them show up and work out for about an hour a week and the rest of the time they are on the honor to follow the exp protocol. With no control ove outside factors such as diet, sleep, stress levels you can’t trust the results. Garbage in garbage out.
As for the people running them they are grad students trying to get credit and check boxes for their degree. Do you tea trust them to care that much? As long as they get credit they could give a crap.
>you do SS
Strength foundation is a meme spouted by fat powerlifters who never actually accomplished anything.
No, it's not
it's not just the studies but also broscience that heavily opposes your notion that heavy weights are better or even needed for hypertrophy, gym rats have used both heavy and light weights and guess what both work and for some light weights are better.
Ever heard of the 20 rep squat program?
You gonna tell me that shit doesn't build big legs?
explain why please
Sounds like you just want excuses for not being able to lift heavy ass weight.
The point is that there are a lot more guys who get huge with heavy weight than light weight. Studies may show faster hypertrophy in a short term with volume, but unless we're seeing a study measured in decades, much like how most people actually lift, then we don't know 100% for sure which really works the best. I just know I get more out of pushing my loads up, not down in a workout, but then again I'm also doing a full workout and not just one or two exercises following set routines.
Chances are these exercises haven't dug deep enough in terms of time, or total workout load for the results to matter.
I've heard of GVT as well, but you know what you need to do such a program? Some base strength. You can't run 40% of a 45lbs barbell for 10x10 and expect to make real gains.
>it's not like the first reps of 10-20 rep sets are using 0 muscle.
They are using LESS muscle and the muscle fibers that they are using are not the ones with a great capacity for growth. Type 1 fibers are recruited first and don't grow as well as Type 2 fibers which are recruited as the set goes on.
>Wrong, it's a spectrum not an on or off switch
Right, muscle fibers are recruited as needed. Your muscle fibers are recruited from weakest to strongest, either from the beginning of the set if the strength demands are high enough (75% or 1RM or greater) or as the set goes on. You can attain full muscular recruitment with heavier weights or you can recruit more fibers as the set continues, but if you choose to lift a lighter weight, your highest tier fibers are getting LESS of a tension stimulus for LESS effective reps.
the last 5-8 reps of a given set
>the last 5-8 reps of a given set are the ones that stimulate significant growth
Ok. So a set of 5-8 produces a growth stimulus (probably greater because the tension is greater) and a set of 12+ produces a growth stimulus for the last few reps (lesser stimulus because the tension is less).
>train for strength
>get strong
>train for aesthetics
>get big
Damn who would've thought?
Fucking strength training autists and their imaginary moral high ground, deep inside wanting to look good but ending up just skinnyfat
Actual retard
Science fight!
Lifting science is like religion. My way is the right way and all you heathens shall be cursed with no gains
>There's no grand conspiracy to suppress bro science in academia champ, there's literally nothing to gain from that
But that's wrong, you fucking retard. It's not even anything mysterious; Read Frankenstein or any other old "mad scientist" themed story. Or look at the Manhattan Project. It makes sense to suppress knowledge that could hurt you and many mad scientists -fictional or otherwise- have expressed that sentiment after they go too far. Governments do and have for a very long time suppressed science and acedemia to maintain power. Look at the christians, soviets, chinks or the American Medical Association.
Lifting science suffers in that people can conceivably respond better /worse to one stimulus vs another, respond well/poorly to any training stimulus in general and would do just as well in the opposing group, and the overall short term duration of the studies.
How is bro science going to hurt you? Guess I haven't read enough Frankenstein to be on your level of cosmic knowledge, I'm just a lowly scientist
>not doing high rep broscience bodybuilding after your heavy compounds
NGMI
>scientist
Your twink porn research doesn't count as science user
That's basically my approach. Heavy compound followed by hypertrophy 5x a week. Lets me make gains while ensuring I get enough volume over the course of a week to make those gains faster than a bro-split or a 3x/week split.
Plus I don't wreck myself on a single muscle group everyday.