Body Transformation Competition

[mituozo]

I used to do heavy barbell squats at my gym then I started working out at home instead, where I have no squat rack or barbell. So I switched to doing ass-to-grass squats while holding dumbells, and let me tell you kids something... high rep squats (40-50 reps) to failure are infinitely more brutal than low reps with heavy weights.

You get a lot more burn doing high rep squats and lactic acid build-up, yes. Although the two different types of training is like comparing marathon running with sprinting. It's an entirely different game and you train for entirely different purposes.

50 rep squats won't make you strong.

 

[johnmatrix]

You get a lot more burn doing high rep squats and lactic acid build-up, yes. Although the two different types of training is like comparing marathon running with sprinting. It's an entirely different game and you train for entirely different purposes.

50 rep squats won't make you strong.

It wont make you as strong as possible, but your strength will still increase, and it builds muscle just as effectively as low reps. I only bench 22.5kg dumbells in a hybrid fly\flat benchpress motion. I do about 18 reps. Even though I never trained with 27.5kg dumbells, and could barely bench press that much after a year of traditional training, I can now pick them up and bang out 12 or so reps. My max strength has therefore increased by doing high reps of a lighter weight.

Basically I decided to research every choice I needed to make to get the most out of every gym session, rep range, number of sets, rest time between sets etc. There's heaps of studies on each variable available on scholar.google.com.

Based on evidence from the studies (not broscience); a high number of reps if done to failure produces the same hypertrophic response as lower rep training, there is also evidence that the growth (protein synthesis) phase lasts longer than with lower reps. The eccentric (downward) phase of any lift is the one that leads to hypertrophy, not the actual lifting phase, so I focus on negatives and throw in a lot of cheat reps at the end because muscles are stronger in the eccentric phase than the concentric phase. There is also evidence that 3 sets is not much better than 1 set done to failure, but I'm sticking with 3 just to make sure for now.

So far, this approach has worked for me, I have gained 3kg of lean muscle in about 5 months. I'm not doing any bulking\cutting bullshit, just slow and steady muscle gains. I figure my muscles respond better to high volume because I'm ecto-ish, low reps didn't really work for me. I'm also happy about not destroying my joints by lifting ridonkulous weights. That's just me though.

 

[Goodcat]

John, have you tried mixing it up? There's absolutely nothing wrong with high rep training like you do, but to get maximum results - for me at least - I find that working out heavy/light in cycles produces the best results.

I'll do 1-2 weeks of heavy lifting, low reps, followed by the same time interval with light weight, high reps to really stress out your muscles, and like I said that works like a charm for me

 

[mituozo]

It wont make you as strong as possible, but your strength will still increase, and it builds muscle just as effectively as low reps. I only bench 22.5kg dumbells in a hybrid fly\flat benchpress motion. I do about 18 reps. Even though I never trained with 27.5kg dumbells, and could barely bench press that much after a year of traditional training, I can now pick them up and bang out 12 or so reps. My max strength has therefore increased by doing high reps of a lighter weight.

Basically I decided to research every choice I needed to make to get the most out of every gym session, rep range, number of sets, rest time between sets etc. There's heaps of studies on each variable available on scholar.google.com.

Based on evidence from the studies (not broscience); a high number of reps if done to failure produces the same hypertrophic response as lower rep training, there is also evidence that the growth (protein synthesis) phase lasts longer than with lower reps. The eccentric (downward) phase of any lift is the one that leads to hypertrophy, not the actual lifting phase, so I focus on negatives and throw in a lot of cheat reps at the end because muscles are stronger in the eccentric phase than the concentric phase. There is also evidence that 3 sets is not much better than 1 set done to failure, but I'm sticking with 3 just to make sure for now.

So far, this approach has worked for me, I have gained 3kg of lean muscle in about 5 months. I'm not doing any bulking\cutting bullshit, just slow and steady muscle gains. I figure my muscles respond better to high volume because I'm ecto-ish, low reps didn't really work for me. I'm also happy about not destroying my joints by lifting ridonkulous weights. That's just me though.

Read about Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs Myofibril hypertrophy.

Myofibril is the primary hypertrophy that takes place in low rep work with 80%+ weight of your 1RM. Sarcoplasmic then takes over as the rep range increases from there.

If what you said is true about strength gains being equal on low rep ranges to high rep ranges, why does every powerlifter train using rep ranges typically between 3-5 for the most part? (Perhaps with added high rep work, but the majority of their work is in the 3-5 range).

Low rep work is the best way to build strength. High rep work in the 40-50 rep range will primarily build endurance, and rep work from 8-20 reps will build the most muscle size.

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength–endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n=9) performing 3–5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n=11) performing 9–11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n=7) performing 20–28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n=5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength–endurance continuum".

 

[johnmatrix]

John, have you tried mixing it up? There's absolutely nothing wrong with high rep training like you do, but to get maximum results - for me at least - I find that working out heavy/light in cycles produces the best results.

I'll do 1-2 weeks of heavy lifting, low reps, followed by the same time interval with light weight, high reps to really stress out your muscles, and like I said that works like a charm for me

I haven't tried that, but I might give it a shot. I only take 30 second breaks between sets, this means the light weights become heavy very quickly anyway. My first set might be 18 reps, second set 10 reps, third set 8 reps.

It's the same way Serge Nubret trained...

Sets of 12-20 reps with 30 seconds rest in between sets. So it is impossible to train with very heavy weights. I used to do 225 kg max on bench press and I trained with only 70/100kg. I always use high volume and high reps. - Serge Nubret

He was training up until he died at 72, and looked fuckin' great.

Now compare him to Frank Zane, who recently required a shoulder replacement and lives with all sorts of latent injuries from his days of heavy lifting. This is what he said in a recent interview...

In those days, I did what was necessary for me to win. This included training with heavy weights: a precursor for injury. So if I could do it over again I’d train with lighter weights, higher reps, no sets below 10 reps, with negatives slower than positives, and avoid injury. If I had done that, my physique wouldn’t have been quite as bulky, but with more definition and with less pain. - Frank Zane

Just sayin'.

 

[johnmatrix]

If what you said is true about strength gains being equal on low rep ranges to high rep ranges, why does every powerlifter train using rep ranges typically between 3-5 for the most part?

Never said the strength gains were equal, I said there are strength gains though. Personally I don't care how much I lift or how much strength I have, unless you're competing then really who gives a shit? My goal is building muscle. The strength will come with it.

Read about Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs Myofibril hypertrophy.

Myofibril is the primary hypertrophy that takes place in low rep work with 80%+ weight of your 1RM. Sarcoplasmic then takes over as the rep range increases from there.

Apparently this isn't true, have a read of this Muscle Fibers and Weight training
The Carpinelli studies can be found on google scholar also.

Here’s the problem, as Carpinelli sees it: “Although the size principle is described reasonably accurately, it is often followed by a misunderstanding of the underlying neurophysiological concept and its practical application.” For example, many authors conclude that maximum or near maximum force—very heavy resistance—is necessary in order to recruit the large motor units and maximize strength gains. In other words, they decide that heavier is better.

“[That] is an invalid reverse inference of the size principle,” says Carpinelli. As noted above, force or resistance is not the controlling factor.

For example, the authors claim, citing the size principle, that heavier resistance (3 to 5 rep max) recruits higher-threshold motor units than lighter resistance (12 to15 rep max). Force or resistance, they assert, is the factor that determines whether high- or low-threshold motor units are recruited.

That’s demonstrably wrong, according to Carpinelli. Resistance (poundage) makes little difference, says Carpinelli, as long as the last few reps are at or near maximum. Effort, not force, is the controlling factor.

Just to be clear, I'm only doing 40 reps at the moment for my legs. This is because of practical problems like having to hold dumbells while doing it as I don't have a barbell. Everything else is about 20 reps max.

 

[Grindstone]

Are you holding the dumbbells at your sides or in the rack position?

 

[mituozo]

Never said the strength gains were equal, I said there are strength gains though. Personally I don't care how much I lift or how much strength I have, unless you're competing then really who gives a shit? My goal is building muscle. The strength will come with it.



Apparently this isn't true, have a read of this Muscle Fibers and Weight training
The Carpinelli studies can be found on google scholar also.



Just to be clear, I'm only doing 40 reps at the moment for my legs. This is because of practical problems like having to hold dumbells while doing it as I don't have a barbell. Everything else is about 20 reps max.

I'm training for strength though, and any beginner lifter will get more benefit from being strong and then looking to gain mass, than by doing hypertrophy stuff from the beginning.

I'm not denying that higher rep stuff isn't better for size and such. Just blindly telling people to do high rep stuff isn't good advice when they have options available to them, and when people train for differing reasons.

I lift because I enjoy the challenge of it and lifting more each time I set foot in the gym. I care what I look like to an extent, but I wouldn't sacrifice all my strength to be more "aesthetic".

The people I see in the gym making the most progress do some kind of routine that involves linear progression and periodization in their routines.

There's tons of good stuff around: Madcow Training - Table of Contents, 5x5 Programs, Dual Factor Theory, Training Theory
How to benefit from Planned Overtraining
Olympic Weightlifting - QWA - Articles - Training Methodology

From people that coach weightlifters and professional athletes. These are people that I choose to follow in general. There's tons of studies which conclude all sorts of conflicting things.

---

Weighed 196 lbs this morning, so 9lbs down, shit ton of water.

Just back from gym:
Squats: 5x50kg, 5x60kg, 5x70kg, 5x80kg
Overhead Press: 5x37.5kg, 5x42.5kg, 5x47.5kg, 5x53kg
Deadlifts: 5x87.5kg, 5x105kg, 5x122.5kg, 5x140kg

 

[Grindstone]

Sick setup grind. What are you training for ?

In all seriousness though, just trying to get strong enough to huck myself off 30' cliffs and stomp the landings all day long. Lifts start turning in ~2 months. Should make sidecountry trips easier too.

Active rest day today, did some mobility work and some hill climbs, no weights. Will rinse and repeat that a couple more times before I call it a day. This wrist thing sucks, hope it heals quick.

 

[amateursurgeon]

Steak's a good source of protein, but high in fat etc too.. Lean meats are better if you put on fat pretty easily.

Not always - I tend towards getting fat, and am eating a very high sat-fat diet now (24 whole eggs a week, gold top milk, steak once a week. Everything cooked in butter, coconut oil or beef dripping), and I'm dropping fat nicely. I've cut my carbs back though - I have a main meal at night with rice or potatoes, but otherwise nothing carbwise aside from fruit during the day.

Weirdly, I think I may be eating less calories overall than when I was eating less fat. I certainly don't get hungry any more, when I used to get mad cravings.

 

[jfizzle]

I came looking for naked pictures of dudes, What the fuck is this? And that dude that sent pictures of himself..hella gay..I saw no ass.

 

[mituozo]

Not always - I tend towards getting fat, and am eating a very high sat-fat diet now (24 whole eggs a week, gold top milk, steak once a week. Everything cooked in butter, coconut oil or beef dripping), and I'm dropping fat nicely. I've cut my carbs back though - I have a main meal at night with rice or potatoes, but otherwise nothing carbwise aside from fruit during the day.

Weirdly, I think I may be eating less calories overall than when I was eating less fat. I certainly don't get hungry any more, when I used to get mad cravings.

It's a general thing really, I eat a lot of chicken, to the extent if I was to try and get the same amount of protein from steak I'd eat far too many kcals.

Certainly if you cut out carbs you can lose a ton of weight on that kind of diet, ketosis/lipolysis is less efficient than other pathways your body uses for energy in the end.

The only problem I have with going super low on the carb front is that I struggle energy wise in the gym. If you don't have the same problem then it's probably the best way to go about things. It seems to be quite variable, I know lots of people that can do a full-on weights sesh at max effort after 16 hours of fasting even, if I was to do it I'd probably pass out.

 

[Grindstone]

ketosis/lipolysis is less efficient than other pathways your body uses for energy in the end.

Such as? No troll, I just thought that was the currently accepted scientific thought.

The only problem I have with going super low on the carb front is that I struggle energy wise in the gym. If you don't have the same problem then it's probably the best way to go about things. It seems to be quite variable, I know lots of people that can do a full-on weights sesh at max effort after 16 hours of fasting even, if I was to do it I'd probably pass out.

This. Low carb makes me feel like a fucking zombie and I eventually freak out and just go eat the shittiest carbs ever in an attempt to get my brain to shut up. Can't train hard, no endurance, etc. Been attempting IF to at least keep the periods of carb ingested insulin production down to 6-7 hours/day but that sucks too.

I've decided that cranking the intensity through the roof is the only way I'm going to get to burn fat and eat foods that fuel me, but the recovery periods at 38 are lot longer than at 18 so that has it's negative aspects as well.

 

[mituozo]

Such as? No troll, I just thought that was the currently accepted scientific thought.



This. Low carb makes me feel like a fucking zombie and I eventually freak out and just go eat the shittiest carbs ever in an attempt to get my brain to shut up. Can't train hard, no endurance, etc. Been attempting IF to at least keep the periods of carb ingested insulin production down to 6-7 hours/day but that sucks too.

I've decided that cranking the intensity through the roof is the only way I'm going to get to burn fat and eat foods that fuel me, but the recovery periods at 38 are lot longer than at 18 so that has it's negative aspects as well.

Yeah I'm basically doing IF at the moment, only eat between midday and 8pm. So have a 16 hour fast. I find breakfast makes me super hungry mid morning. (Which was nicely explained by an article put together on Lean Gains.. Basically morning insulin spike is exagerated by high cortisol levels just after you've woken up, which means blood sugar plummets and you get desperately hungry a couple hours after breakfast.. Seems to affect some people more than others.)

My understanding with ketosis/lipolysis was that it is less efficient than glycolysis - I could be wildly off the mark though.

The way I understood ketogenic diets to work is that by eating minimal carbs, you don't have much glucose in the blood (and subsequently much glycogen stored in the liver), and that glycogen is far more efficiently broken down to be used as energy than fats are. Thus by having a low carb diet you burn more calories in the day-to-day, because your body cannot function as efficiently.

There seems to be tons of debate on the whole subject though. I try not to worry about it, keep my carbs low (but not zero/atkins levels) and run with that.

For now I'm just sticking to the weights and IF, but if I start to hit sticking points/plateaus I'll begin to throw in cardio work on top of it.

 

[johnmatrix]

Not always - I tend towards getting fat, and am eating a very high sat-fat diet now (24 whole eggs a week, gold top milk, steak once a week. Everything cooked in butter, coconut oil or beef dripping), and I'm dropping fat nicely. I've cut my carbs back though - I have a main meal at night with rice or potatoes, but otherwise nothing carbwise aside from fruit during the day.

Weirdly, I think I may be eating less calories overall than when I was eating less fat. I certainly don't get hungry any more, when I used to get mad cravings.

Yeah this is what people dont seem to realise, eating fat doesn't make you fat. I eat a high fat diet because its easier than eating a kilo of lean chicken breast every day. I eat about 10 spoons of peanut butter too, that gives me 70grams of protein and 1500 calories! I find it hard to eat a lot of food, so I eat really calorie dense foods instead.

 

[johnmatrix]

Not always - I tend towards getting fat, and am eating a very high sat-fat diet now (24 whole eggs a week, gold top milk, steak once a week. Everything cooked in butter, coconut oil or beef dripping), and I'm dropping fat nicely. I've cut my carbs back though - I have a main meal at night with rice or potatoes, but otherwise nothing carbwise aside from fruit during the day.

Weirdly, I think I may be eating less calories overall than when I was eating less fat. I certainly don't get hungry any more, when I used to get mad cravings.

Yeah this is what people dont seem to realise, eating fat doesn't make you fat. I eat a high fat diet because its easier than eating a kilo of lean chicken breast every day. I eat about 10 spoons of peanut butter for example, that gives me 70grams of protein and 1500 calories! I find it hard to eat a lot of food, so I eat really calorie dense foods instead.

Might try intermittent fasting for 2 days out of the week also. There's a BBC documentary on it, very interesting stuff. One thing that scared me in the doco was that eating a high protein diet speeds up your cell division, essentially aging you faster...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfna7nV7WaM]BBC Horizon 2012: Eat, Fast and Live Longer - YouTube[/ame]

 

[mituozo]

Yeah this is what people dont seem to realise, eating fat doesn't make you fat. I eat a high fat diet because its easier than eating a kilo of lean chicken breast every day. I eat about 10 spoons of peanut butter too, that gives me 70grams of protein and 1500 calories! I find it hard to eat a lot of food, so I eat really calorie dense foods instead.

Yeah, definitely don't disagree on that. In the end a calorie is a calorie. The only issue with eating steak and stuff is the higher calorie count means that if you're trying to lose fat that you can't eat as much, which isn't great for stemming hunger.

Chicken and lean meats are awesome when you're trying to lose weight. Steaks and other red meat are awesome when you're trying to gain weight. As are whole milk, nuts, etc..

 

[johnmatrix]

Since I was always such a picky eater, sometimes I'll go days without lunch or breakfast for example, I've basically been doing IF inadvertently for years. I've never really been a healthy eater, just a small eater. I had a blood test recently and the results were excellent, my cholesterol was really low and my HDL was higher than my LDL. My white blood cell count was 4.1 where the reference range is between 4 and 11, so I'm at the lowest acceptable level of white cells circulating my blood. This is a good sign because it means there is no inflammation, white cell count goes up with inflammation. Smokers for example will have a substantially higher WBC count. Risk of disease and death goes up with your cell count.

There's also a clear link between birth weight and your chance of developing heart disease, diabetes and overall mortality. Heavy babies have the least risk of disease in old age, the heavier you were the better. Light weight babies will have a rough time later in life even with proper diet and lifestyle, there are massive studies that have been conducted on this over decades. Even though I never weighed much and I've always been pretty skinny, I was born heavier than normal at 8.5lbs, so ask your folks how heavy you were!

 

[blogspotter]

Well I eat like an hour before my work out. And then I eat like a Mofo after my work out.
I was doing the six day split and had some good progress both on lean gains as well as fat loss. I started 5X5 on the suggestion of my WF Bros.. and this 5X5 in the beginning is boring as fuck, so I send up doing 5-6 sets of Accessories after the 5X5.. But I know that it will be demanding in the coming Weeks. Problem is the eating when it gets heavier.. I am eating like 3000 Cals.. But how do one eat 4000-5000 Cals man? Ice cream?

 

[johnmatrix]

I am eating like 3000 Cals.. But how do one eat 4000-5000 Cals man? Ice cream?

Peanut butter my friend, each tablespoon is 150 calories with 7grams of protein.