10 x 3 Hypertrophy

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]caca wrote:
… i was reminded in another thread why i stay away from message boards.

so i’m signing off.

but i will leave you with this.

why the arbitrary number of 3 sets and why 10 reps? does something majical occur on the 10th rep?

what if i did 2 sets of 20, since volume is best, why not 20 sets of a 100?

Caca.[/quote]

Did I miss something or was the original topic of this thread

10 * 3

where did the 3 sets of 10 come from. Have you been arguing about something other than the thread suggests?

22

[quote] caca wrote:
Just off the top of my head, books i’ve read, Arthur Jones Nautilus Training Principles, Mike Mentzer Heavy I and Heavy Duty II, High Intensity Training Dr. Elington Darden, Rational Strength Training Dr. Kevin Fontaine…
[/quote]

I haven’t read any of these, so I’m just guessing, but I’d suspect that if you looked at them closely you’d find most of them claim that working to failure can lead to muscle growth, but I doubt many of them claim that failure training is the ONLY way to grow. But again, I’m just guessing.

[quote] caca wrote:
as for distinguishing “growth” and “growth mechanism”, i don’t understand the piont you are trying to make…?
[/quote]

I’m trying to point out that I don’t agree with your earlier statement about there being [quote]“no such thing as more or less hypertrophy. the growth mechanism has been activated or it hasn’t”. [/quote]

Hypertrophy means growth and there can be more or less growth depending on training/nutritional parameters.

[quote] caca wrote:
you are contradicting yourself [/quote]

no he isn’t.

[quote] caca wrote:
why the arbitrary number of 3 sets and why 10 reps? does something majical occur on the 10th rep?

what if i did 2 sets of 20, since volume is best, why not 20 sets of a 100?
[/quote]

I actually read the story behind the 3 sets of 10 philosophy, I think somewhere on this site. I don’t have time to dig up the link for you, but if I’m remembering correctly it involved and Army doctor doing research on the best parameters for doing rehabilitation type exercise. This was back in the 50’s or 60’s and it grew from there. That being said, I don’t think you’ll find many people here advocating 3 sets of 10 as a long term set/rep scheme (fyi 10x3 = 10 sets of 3 reps - RTFA next time). Likewise with volume (see today’s Tip of the Day from Ian King - the T-Nation consesus seems to be that the key parameter in any training program is variation.

23

[quote]caca wrote:
… i was reminded in another thread why i stay away from message boards.

so i’m signing off.

but i will leave you with this.

why the arbitrary number of 3 sets and why 10 reps? does something majical occur on the 10th rep?

what if i did 2 sets of 20, since volume is best, why not 20 sets of a 100?

Caca.[/quote]

More of that “wow” factor I was experiencing earlier in this thread.
that’s 10 SETS of 3 REPS, not 3 sets of 10 reps dude. You have it backwards.

24

Isn’t it obvious that this guy is just a HIT jedi? Haven’t seen one in a while actually, but his attitude and close-mindedness are typical of the HITers of the late 90’s. No need to really respond to him, because you will always be wrong in his eyes. Let him live in his own little microcosm.

25

caca,

What you wrote is, simply put, a load of bullshit. Instead of pseudo-science babbling, try actually reading some of the articles on this site.

Just because Jones/Mentzer/Darden/Bryzcki pull some analogy out of their asses, doesn’t mean they have (had) a clue about physiology of the human body or weight training science. For starters, do you realize that (concentric) failure on a set of 1 to 10 reps is largely a neurological phenomenon?

Just because something isn’t HIT, it doesn’t mean it’s “volume” or that you’ll be doing 20 sets for biceps, like in a Weider publication. There is TONS of QUAILTY information about training you’re probably not even aware it exists! And a great deal of it is available at this great site.

Have you ever read something by some/any of these people: Bill Starr, Fred Hatfield, Louie Simmons, Dave Tate, Joe Kenn, Charlie Francis, Christian Thidebaudeau, Charles Staley, Ian King, Chad Waterbury, Bryan Haycock, Eric Cressey, Mike Robertson… and finally, late Dr. Mel Siff?

I guess not, or you wouldn’t be saying such redicolous things as: “the growth mechanism has been activated or it hasn’t.” or “science tells us hypertrophy is activated when the muscle is pushed beyond what it is capable of - failure.”

26

[quote]HHH wrote:
So 10 x 3 For or against?
HHH [/quote]

Definetly “for.”

Matt

27

You’ve made your own argument against yourself, caca. If you want to KNOW what causes hypertrophy then read the articles by CW,Charles Staley and by Bryan Haycock. These guys base their work off of the most prominent strength experts in the world. Zatsiorsky, Siff, Verkoshansky, Medveyev, Kraemer, etc… These people are the experts, not dimwits like Mentzer and Jones.

Now as for your tanning analogy (which ironically enough I’ve used to support CW’s ideas) just think for a moment. If I got to failure, then I’m basically saying that I need maximal exposure to the stimulus. This is called a sunburn. All I need is a consistent exposure that is progressively more than I’m currently used to. Any more is damaging and slows progress. Once you reach a level of exposure that is more than yesterday, then anything more will be a drain on your adaptation/recovery. Lee Haney used to say “Stimulate, don’t annihilate”. Mechanical load for a sufficient duration and frequency causes growth. THAT is not up for debate, as it is proven in the research literature. You will find more than enough info on this site to educate you on why submaximal training not taken to failure will cause growth.

I’m going to assume you are a serious newbie, and not load you down with a complex argument. At any rate, you need to educate yourself with the source material, not celebrity “briefs” of the research. When I trained to failure, I was never able to exceed 200lbs. Now at 240lbs with 20" arms, I can honestly say failure training is idiotic if used anything but rarely. In addition the term “intensity” is misused by these HIT advocates. It is a measureable term that relates to the percentage of 1RM you are training with. It is not the tough M&F face that looks like you’re giving birth to a watermelon.

DH

[quote]caca wrote:
merc63 wrote:
caca wrote:
there’s no such thing as “more or less hypertrophy”. the growth mechanism has been activated or it hasn’t.

Except that the word ‘hypertrophy’ doesn’t describe a growth mechanism it describes growth. Specifically the (nontumorous) enlargement of tissue (or an organ) through an increase in cell size (as opposed to an increase in the number of cells). At least, that’s what this book called Dictionary that I’ve got on my desk says.
=P

caca wrote:
science tells us hypertrophy is activated when the muscle is pushed beyond what it is capable of - failure.

What science are you talking about?

i won’t pretend to be a doctor, but i’m reffering to human body science. The same way your skin tans from exposure to sunlight, your muscles respond by growing when exposed to high intensity stimulus.

as for distinguishing “growth” and “growth mechanism”, i don’t understand the piont you are trying to make…?[/quote]

28

[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
HHH wrote:
So 10 x 3 For or against?
HHH

Definetly “for.”

Matt[/quote]

Oh yeah, the point of the thread. =D

Ditto - nothing works forever, but 10 x 3 appears to be an effective tool to use as needed (I haven’t been doing that style of workout long enough to quantitatively say how effective it is for me, but I buy the theory behind it).

29

HHH,
Read ABBH. You mix the 10 x 3 with an inverse scenario such as 4-5 x 10 on the subsequent workout. This allows for maximal stimulation of Type IIA and IIB fibers. Also, it takes calories to grow. Every day. Write it down and prove that you are eating enough. Don’t tell me you are, prove it.

Finally, sometimes it takes a bit longer for growth of this kind because you are growing the contractile proteins not bloating the muscle with false sarcoplasmic “growth” that literally leaves in a week or two. Real fiber growth is a bit slower but is permanent (comparatively speaking). I’ve gone 2-3 months with only 1-2 workouts and lost no size. Again, read and apply ABBH.

DH

[quote]HHH wrote:
Hi people

It seems like the trend nowadays for hypertrophy is training with heavy loads not to failure with low reps
eg-10 x 3 12 x 2 etc…
Do u find that this gives u more hypertrophy than say the traditional 8-12 “so called” hypertrophy range?
Im still experimenting myself but i find im getting more strengh than muscle size.But thats just me i suppose.
But when i work it in with 5 x 10 ala anti bodybuilding training it seems to work well.
So 10 x 3 For or against?
Peace
HHH [/quote]

30

[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
HHH wrote:
So 10 x 3 For or against?
HHH

Definetly “for.”

Matt[/quote]

Thanks Matt

Thats pretty much all i wanted to know a ANSWER to my question .Geez that seems to be kinda hard around here lately,people just want to pick fights or argue.
Peace
HHH

31

Good work gentlemen. HHH I dont see this as picking a fight with CACA. He was disemminating information that was totally inaccurate. Yes I agree there are many ways to get big and strong. Explore them and find the ways that work best for you. However some approaches will just not work at all at best and at worst might cause harm. One method that comes to mind is one thats taught to women all the time, that they should use low weight and high reps to get tone. This simply will not work, if you think otherwise then prove it. From the responses I read to caca they where right on, perhaps a little edgy but we arent a bunch of girlscouts this guy is too much, its not a matter of disagreeing with his approach its that a lot of what he said is quite simply false. Man I love this site all this info for free and intense people to share ideas with and learn from, the occasional battle is to be expected. I cant believe its free. Peace all.

32

HHH, go back to the first page of this thread and click on that link that I posted for caca. It will explain the science behind 10x3 for you in a most fascinating way.

33

[quote]caca wrote:

science tells us hypertrophy is activated when the muscle is pushed beyond what it is capable of - failure.

i won’t pretend to be a doctor, but i’m reffering to human body science. The same way your skin tans from exposure to sunlight, your muscles respond by growing when exposed to high intensity stimulus.
[/quote]

Does that mean tanning to failure? High intensity tanning? Forced sunstrokes? One all out sunburn per musclegroup?

34

Although you have ‘signed’ off once faced with opposing views I thought I should reiterate my statement. You said I was contradicting myself because I said size and strength aren’t directly related then I said they are related. Sounds the same. But the key word is ‘directly’. I agreed they are related, but I don’t agree that they are directly related. This is the use of the English language in action. Directly related implies that one cannot occur without the other present. This is where you are wrong. In fact I myself am proof of this. I have gotten stronger in the last year doing low volume, heavy lifting without putting on much size at all(because I do martial arts and don’t want to). I believe the accepted correlation is 66%. And if Ellington Darden and Mike Mentzer are the authorities, well that could be the problem. I wonder why all those lightweight olympic lifters, powerlifters and throwers aren’t bigger considering their strength? Shouldn’t all the wrestlers, judoka, etc. that I have trained with who are way stronger than they look be huge monsters? Must be a coincidence, eh?

35

The HIT philosophy has its place in the weightlifting world, but there are other philosophies/ methods that are more productive. Change is good!

I like the Waterbury method of 10x3. The only problem I had was the stress it put on my shoulders. At 80-85% of your max, that’s a lot of wear and tear on this old body.

36

CACA is just a HIT believer. he doesn’t read any of the training article in this web.

size & strength is related, but you can gain strength without gainin size, pls read CW’s “Strength-Focused Mesocycle”

also, if you don’t eat enough, you can’t get big, no matter how strong you’re.

and some people response to high volume, i’m one of them.

the number “3” & “10” (no matter it’s sets or reps), is not something fixed.
pls read CW’s “SOB training”. there is 10x3, 2x30, 1x50…etc.

sign off this messageboard is good for you caca, because when you post, you just let others know you may have some kind of brain problem…can’t think properly…can’t put in new informations…