High Volume vs Heavy Weight

Empire wrote: There has been alot of research done about training to failure, and I recently read something some where about it doesn't matter the weight or rep ranges used to induce hypertrophy, it is all about training to failure. So you could use a lighter weight, perfect the form, slow negatives and go to failure and get the same if not more muscle growth than say doing 6 reps with the heaviest weight and risk injury. I mean we can look through the history books at some of the most awesome bodybuilders and how some of them don't use the biggest amount of weight, how ever do train to failure.

I personally feel that training to failure on your first exercise with compound movements is vital, then move on to more pump based stuff stopping 1 or 2 reps shy of failure.

You also need to figure out what works for you and what doesn't and that's the fun part.

This is all true, great post. The latest studies have shown that low weight to failure and high weight to failure (30% 1RM and 90% 1RM) causes the exact same metabolic damage and protein breakdown in the muscle but that most people cannot reach true muscle failure of the targeted muscles using higher weight so the final recommendations for the studies were to use lighter weight with the slow eccentric, extended TUT and focus on full ROM of the muscle being worked.

There is a great training technique which I urge you all to try called the 3/7 method invented by french exercise scientists aimed to allow most people to reach true muscle failure.

You take your 10 rep maximum weight (on non compound lifts) and you do 5 sets (remembering slow eccentric, extended TUT and focus on full ROM with good mind muscle connection working AROUND the joints (in arcs)); in the first set you do 3 reps, the second set 4 reps, 5 reps etc until 7. The key being to only rest 15 seconds between sets. If you have not reached true muscle failure and are not wanting to cry from the pain by the end then you keep that weight and do the same thing again. Every single person I have told this to has come back saying how painful this workout was and how they feel they are already making more progress than ever before.

Please can you try this out at some stage this week? It is something I will be using on my clients in the future so your feedback would be appreciated.

Hormonas wrote:

Empire wrote: There has been alot of research done about training to failure, and I recently read something some where about it doesn't matter the weight or rep ranges used to induce hypertrophy, it is all about training to failure. So you could use a lighter weight, perfect the form, slow negatives and go to failure and get the same if not more muscle growth than say doing 6 reps with the heaviest weight and risk injury. I mean we can look through the history books at some of the most awesome bodybuilders and how some of them don't use the biggest amount of weight, how ever do train to failure.

I personally feel that training to failure on your first exercise with compound movements is vital, then move on to more pump based stuff stopping 1 or 2 reps shy of failure.

You also need to figure out what works for you and what doesn't and that's the fun part.

This is all true, great post. The latest studies have shown that low weight to failure and high weight to failure (30% 1RM and 90% 1RM) causes the exact same metabolic damage and protein breakdown in the muscle but that most people cannot reach true muscle failure of the targeted muscles using higher weight so the final recommendations for the studies were to use lighter weight with the slow eccentric, extended TUT and focus on full ROM of the muscle being worked.

There is a great training technique which I urge you all to try called the 3/7 method invented by french exercise scientists aimed to allow most people to reach true muscle failure.

You take your 10 rep maximum weight (on non compound lifts) and you do 5 sets (remembering slow eccentric, extended TUT and focus on full ROM with good mind muscle connection working AROUND the joints (in arcs)); in the first set you do 3 reps, the second set 4 reps, 5 reps etc until 7. The key being to only rest 15 seconds between sets. If you have not reached true muscle failure and are not wanting to cry from the pain by the end then you keep that weight and do the same thing again. Every single person I have told this to has come back saying how painful this workout was and how they feel they are already making more progress than ever before.

Please can you try this out at some stage this week? It is something I will be using on my clients in the future so your feedback would be appreciated.

I have done a few online training courses with the poliquin group and time under tension is the biggest factor they attribute break down of muscle tissue too. They like the 4020 timing or the 3010 timing always focusing on your ability to control the eccentric as well as the static hold at the bottom and top part of the movement.

I like your routine, it does sound pretty awesome and I will give it a bash. Now my question is why only 15 seconds between sets as it usually takes more than 15 seconds for you to regenerate atp and be used for the next set... would this not be more effective if you extended the rest period an additional 30 seconds?

I'm no expert, but I always find myself changing it up with different suggestions and each of them seem to work exactly like explained.

My personal opinion (no science hahaha) is that everything works the way it's explained and one is not better than the other. I feel that I get best results when changing it up every now and then which leads back to the old belief of never keeping the same routine for too long.

I do however think that some people find a great kick from one of the suggested methods due to genetics, lifestyle and mind-set.
For me personally the bigger is better got me going when I initially started training. In all honestly I think it was more psychological than anything else. back in my teens I started training with bigger older friends and had to keep up with guys 5yrs+ older than me. Prior to that I trained with volume and I think it just became monotonous until I nearly kakd myself trying to bench 80kg as a 15 yr old hahaha. To me this feeling was the best ever and my new love for "bigger is better" developed

Now later in life I am always discovering new things and decided to switch it up every few weeks. Every few weeks the new routine just seems to work like a bomb until it gets monotonous and I switch to an older technique... then the monotonous cycle repeats and I switch it up to something else again.

Is this because the technique doesn't work? NO! This is just how our minds play tricks on us... along with how the body adapts to new routines your results are sure to slow down.

So what I personally do is take everyone's advice and try to tweak it to fit in with my own style and BOOM I'm good to go. so knowing your body is very important and plays a big role in how you progress in this lifestyle.

some advice needs to be taken with a pinch of salt of course... because you will not "get a 6 pack in 30 days with the secret nobody wants us to know about. it's the latest craze and all the celebs are using it" :whistle:

Hormonas wrote:

Empire wrote: There has been alot of research done about training to failure, and I recently read something some where about it doesn't matter the weight or rep ranges used to induce hypertrophy, it is all about training to failure. So you could use a lighter weight, perfect the form, slow negatives and go to failure and get the same if not more muscle growth than say doing 6 reps with the heaviest weight and risk injury. I mean we can look through the history books at some of the most awesome bodybuilders and how some of them don't use the biggest amount of weight, how ever do train to failure.

I personally feel that training to failure on your first exercise with compound movements is vital, then move on to more pump based stuff stopping 1 or 2 reps shy of failure.

You also need to figure out what works for you and what doesn't and that's the fun part.

This is all true, great post. The latest studies have shown that low weight to failure and high weight to failure (30% 1RM and 90% 1RM) causes the exact same metabolic damage and protein breakdown in the muscle but that most people cannot reach true muscle failure of the targeted muscles using higher weight so the final recommendations for the studies were to use lighter weight with the slow eccentric, extended TUT and focus on full ROM of the muscle being worked.

There is a great training technique which I urge you all to try called the 3/7 method invented by french exercise scientists aimed to allow most people to reach true muscle failure.

You take your 10 rep maximum weight (on non compound lifts) and you do 5 sets (remembering slow eccentric, extended TUT and focus on full ROM with good mind muscle connection working AROUND the joints (in arcs)); in the first set you do 3 reps, the second set 4 reps, 5 reps etc until 7. The key being to only rest 15 seconds between sets. If you have not reached true muscle failure and are not wanting to cry from the pain by the end then you keep that weight and do the same thing again. Every single person I have told this to has come back saying how painful this workout was and how they feel they are already making more progress than ever before.

Please can you try this out at some stage this week? It is something I will be using on my clients in the future so your feedback would be appreciated.

Im def gonna try this next, do you have any specific excercises on this program to follow ensuring ROM?

Empire wrote: I like your routine, it does sound pretty awesome and I will give it a bash. Now my question is why only 15 seconds between sets as it usually takes more than 15 seconds for you to regenerate atp and be used for the next set... would this not be more effective if you extended the rest period an additional 30 seconds?

To be honest I don't quite know why they recommend 15 seconds I can only assume the goal is to not allow ATP to fully regenerate for some reason.

Im def gonna try this next, do you have any specific excercises on this program to follow ensuring ROM?

Chest - Cable flies (can cross over a tiny bit if you want but make sure it is not sloppily crossed over, it needs to be controlled)
Back is quite a tough one, I would probably stick to pullovers on the cables because cables are easier for this routine with all of the resting and multiple sets.
Shoulders - 45 degree delt raises (half way between directly to the side and in front)
Biceps - Inline bench curls
Triceps - Overhead tricep extensions on cables
Quads - extensions
Hammies - lying leg curls
Calves - seated calf raises for the soleus muscles
Forearms - reverse grip curl

Hormonas wrote:

Empire wrote: I like your routine, it does sound pretty awesome and I will give it a bash. Now my question is why only 15 seconds between sets as it usually takes more than 15 seconds for you to regenerate atp and be used for the next set... would this not be more effective if you extended the rest period an additional 30 seconds?

To be honest I don't quite know why they recommend 15 seconds I can only assume the goal is to not allow ATP to fully regenerate for some reason.

Im def gonna try this next, do you have any specific excercises on this program to follow ensuring ROM?

Chest - Cable flies (can cross over a tiny bit if you want but make sure it is not sloppily crossed over, it needs to be controlled)
Back is quite a tough one, I would probably stick to pullovers on the cables because cables are easier for this routine with all of the resting and multiple sets.
Shoulders - 45 degree delt raises (half way between directly to the side and in front)
Biceps - Inline bench curls
Triceps - Overhead tricep extensions on cables
Quads - extensions
Hammies - lying leg curls
Calves - seated calf raises for the soleus muscles
Forearms - reverse grip curl

Can you or maybe me start a new trend with this routine? Prefably you cause I dont want to make it look like I pinched your idea, then I can give feeback on this and ask questions, I have a few?

Any of you guys trained the Body by Science way by Dough Mc Guff?

Rooi Bul 86 wrote: Any of you guys trained the Body by Science way by Dough Mc Guff?

I read the book some years ago. Can't remember all the details without skimming through but I'll try and recall. So it's strict high intensity training, strict low volume. Tim Ferris used these principles in "4 Hour Body". The explanations and science were cool because I have a hard-on for scientific explanation. Reminded me a lot of Mike Mentzer, and to a degree Dorian Yates.

It's pretty extreme training that little per week. I would go nuts. I can't remember when the book was published so how much is relevant with today's findings I can't rightly say (like all sciences, new discoveries can be made and old hypotheses disproven). One thing is certain, fullbody infrequent workouts are a really good start for natty beginners.

Also, anabolic steroids changes the equation. Going harder, longer, more frequent, faster recovery and all that, you guys know...

But RooiBul this is like the opposite to what you do lol. You train p##s hard with variety and volume and tough cardio. Don't think this will give you the stimulus you are looking for unless you're on something like DNP.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Hi RooiBul. Yip have the book. I agree with Furk that is more for natty and general fitness. You wont build massive muscle by doing only 12 minutes of exercise a week. Although Mike Mentzer dis claim to train only once every 4-8 days. But he did go to beyond muscle failure. Some great techniques. Dorian tool the concept to a whole new level though but he did train weights 4 times a week for no more than 45 minutes. Also great techniques for going beyond failure. It is great to train this way.

Back to topic it probably fits in low volume heavy weights but with dropsets, forced reps, static holds or rest/pause to go beyond failure.

Have to love the Shadow!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Oupa,

net gou uitvind sodat ek reg hier verstaan. Gaan jy wel met elke set op met die gewig aan een , en dit is dan een set?
ek het baie prober op lees op MI 40 training so prober nuwe dinge op te kyk wat werk die beste vir my.

op die oomblik doen ek meeste parymid en dan giant set.

Empire wrote: There has been alot of research done about training to failure

The only issue with training to failure when it comes to squats is that your last rep before failure increases your risk of staying in the squated position until someone can rescue you from underneath the barbell.

LOL true eatclen

eatClen wrote: increases your risk of staying in the squated position until someone can rescue you from underneath the barbell.

That is why you have spotter bars in your power rack. And if you drop the weight on the spotter bars, stand up quickly and let out a manly scream people will think its part of the show.

vojago wrote:
That is why you have spotter bars in your power rack. And if you drop the weight on the spotter bars, stand up quickly and let out a manly scream people will think its part of the show.

all these years I thought it was for sitting when you are tired to help build up energy while looking at gym babes in their tight gym lycra pants.

One thing is clear when it comes to all these options, in my opinion: if you are genetically blessed pretty much anything works - I suppose to a point of course. I have mates who look at a barbell and gain muscle whereas those with kak genetics, like myself, have to bust my backside, do drop sets, failure sets, be creative with angles to get gains - to add I look at cake and get fat - doesn’t help. All comes down to experimenting, logging and seeing what works for you.