10 reps is too much volume? I’m only hitting singles when I’m planning on pulling over 405 and thats after at least 3 sets worth of working reps (8-16+). I pull from a rack though. I’m not stupid enough to kill my back again.
[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:
6-8 reps is ideal for hypertrophy anything lower is strength anything higher is endurance. So really you may not be stalling on deads as long as your increasing the reps with the same weight or increasing the weight you will curb plateauing. [/quote]
I’d have to disagree. 8-12 is typically more hypertrophy 4-6 strength and above 12 endurance.
Obviously, it’s not a sure cut off point, but a continuum.
I think if you’ve had success with hypertrophy at 5x5, then clearly you’ve had success with hypertrophy at 5x5…catch my drift? If it works for you, then it works for you. Plain and simple. Now if you’ve stalled out on a PR…my biggest question to you is what is your workout nutrition like? break it down for me. Second, I would cut down on your warm up, but that’s just my opinion. How long are you resting between work sets?
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Fuzzyapple wrote:
6-8 reps is ideal for hypertrophy anything lower is strength anything higher is endurance. So really you may not be stalling on deads as long as your increasing the reps with the same weight or increasing the weight you will curb plateauing.
I’d have to disagree. 8-12 is typically more hypertrophy 4-6 strength and above 12 endurance.
Obviously, it’s not a sure cut off point, but a continuum.[/quote]
Deadlifting is and should be about explosive movement. yes, the typical guideline for hypertrophy, strength, etc., are generally listed in that scheme, as said however, locking yourself into a set rep range is silly. You’re body doesn’t know what the seventh rep IS, your body’s responsiveness is based on what the seventh rep FEELS like.
As others mentioned i’d incorporate a lower volume, find an alternate exercise for a bit, maybe pull from the pins for a bit setting it lower as you progress.
Sometimes stalls are neurologically based, you may have the strength but your mind has a system shut off switch for self preservation reasons. Often times, provided you’ve got the strength, you just need to discover a means to override your neurological training wheels so to speak.
But isn’t muscle under tension is what builds muscle. Say you have a tempo of 1:0:1 for explosive lift over a tempo of 302, the second example will generally build more muscle.
Yes, no?
[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:
But isn’t muscle under tension is what builds muscle. Say you have a tempo of 1:0:1 for explosive lift over a tempo of 302, the second example will generally build more muscle.
Yes, no?[/quote]
i’m simply talking about the nature of the deadlift; not often do you hear slow, slow, slow, get the negative on the deadlift. By design it is an explosive movement so if you slow it down or “do too many reps” you are going to undermine what it is by nature, that’s all I was trying to express. i see your point about tempo and time under tension, however this is one movement I wouldn’t alter too much for the sake of for the sake of time under tension. Just my 2 cents.
No. You’re splitting hairs with your tempo example (not a huge difference there), which is kindof missing the point about weightlifting.
For an acute session, a hypertrophy stimulus is achieved through a combination of high load and appropriate volume.
What you should think about more with training is what relative intensity you are training at. Is this a load that is about 80% of my 1RM? Is this a load I can only lift 6 times?
The maximum velocity you can move a given load at is pretty well described by the force velocity relationship. If you increase the time under tension by manipulating the muscle action you will be limiting the total volume you can do owing to acute fatigue. This won’t help hypertrophy. The trade-off commonly observed is to lower the load (lets say below 70% 1RM), do the slower contractions, and get to the same volume. However now you won’t be required to generate the same force level, won’t recruit the bigger motor units, and in then end have compromised what has been shown to work time and time again for hypertrophy and strength; lifting at a high relative intensity. This is one of the areas where people trot out the size principle to justify that the longer you hold something the more likely you will recruit bigger motor units. This is nonsense, as this principle is dependent on the force level required to be generated. Just cause you go walking for 10 hours doesn’t mean you’ll be providing a hypertrophy stimulus to your type II fibers.
Common descriptions you will read all over this website are great. Lift a heavy load, and lift it hard!! Meaning, lift heavy, and try to generate maximum force with each and every rep. This doesn’t mean guys are plyometrically throwing 400lbs up into the air with their deadlifts, but they’re trying, and they’re getting GREAT results.
Push hard concentrically, control where safe the eccentric action, and lift at a good relative intensity.
Doing the long slow negatives and slow cadences (anything above a 3 second tempo is slow in my book) can really get you sore, but being sore doesn’t=hypertrophy.
Before anyone jumps on a “but what about…”, I’m definitely not discounting isometric type work (but still with maximal loading) for muscles predominantly type I in nature, as these types of actions have been shown to work. But, as a general what you should do, just lift heavy and make sure you don’t hurt yourself with it (then you’ll be controlling it enough to work).
How about REALLY long static holds (20-30 secs with low load in extreme positions)? I think this has great potential in regards of connective tissue adaptation (the sheaths surrounding the different muscle fiber bundles - aggressive stretching really). If this potentially improves muscle compartment size then great!!
Although I’m not totally clued up on it, I think this is one unique feature woven into Doggcrapp training?
time for not serious: fuck that was a long post, just good to see a relatively interesting topic compared to ghetto training and days of our lives.
well all of this is may be true about time under tension and rep ranges, but if someone is having success at building muscle at 5x5, I would let them keep going until they stall out.
On the other hand, in terms of rep ranges, I know Poliquin always advises 8-12 reps for hypertrophy and strength on STIFF LEG deadlifts, due to the fact that it involves much more of your lower back and hams combined, as opposed to a leg curl. Meaning that a low rep range of an exercise that has a lot of muscle to hit and stretch out, needs more reps in order to get the whole muscle under tension.
you say you have been eating a surplus…but have only gained 5lbs in 8 weeks. now you might have gained more then that by losing fat too but if your trying to gain weight…and only gaining .625lbs/wk…you might need to bump your calories a bit higher.
[quote]B rocK wrote:
you say you have been eating a surplus…but have only gained 5lbs in 8 weeks. now you might have gained more then that by losing fat too but if your trying to gain weight…and only gaining .625lbs/wk…you might need to bump your calories a bit higher.[/quote]
On top of this, you could try increasing your neurological drive by decreasing your volume and increasing your frequency. Move to hitting your DL 2-3/week with few reps and sets.
At some point, I stalled using straight 5x5 on deadlifts. Had more success with various forms of pyramid loading.
[quote]markdp wrote:
Fuzzyapple wrote:
If your goal is hypertrophy then why are you shooting for 25 reps? That’s more like strength endurance.
Really? I thought 25 reps would be good for hypertrophy…[/quote]
Why do you think this?
[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:
But isn’t muscle under tension is what builds muscle. Say you have a tempo of 1:0:1 for explosive lift over a tempo of 302, the second example will generally build more muscle.
Yes, no?[/quote]
Fuck time under tension, tempo, all that nonsense. Anyone seriously counting seconds as they’re lifting should probably be lifting heavier weights.
I don’t even see how people who tend to overcomplicate things can get caught up in rep tempo and TUT.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Fuzzyapple wrote:
But isn’t muscle under tension is what builds muscle. Say you have a tempo of 1:0:1 for explosive lift over a tempo of 302, the second example will generally build more muscle.
Yes, no?
Fuck time under tension, tempo, all that nonsense. Anyone seriously counting seconds as they’re lifting should probably be lifting heavier weights.
I don’t even see how people who tend to overcomplicate things can get caught up in rep tempo and TUT.[/quote]
Agreed. Every time I see questions like that I feel like banging my head into a wall. I am willing to be the least impressively built people are the ones caught up in their “TUT” more than whether that weight being lifted is actually causing them to strain and push really hard just to make it through the set.
There is nothing wrong with TUT, actually some find it more effective than just lifting heavier and with faster reps. You can still use a good amount of weight and focus on TUT, the principle behind it is not to curl 20lb dumbbells or bench 135 as slow as possible… Personally, I do TUT quite often and have found it to be effective when I have plateaued or find my progress has gone stagnant.
[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:
Fuzzyapple wrote:
But isn’t muscle under tension is what builds muscle. Say you have a tempo of 1:0:1 for explosive lift over a tempo of 302, the second example will generally build more muscle.
Yes, no?
i’m simply talking about the nature of the deadlift; not often do you hear slow, slow, slow, get the negative on the deadlift. By design it is an explosive movement so if you slow it down or “do too many reps” you are going to undermine what it is by nature, that’s all I was trying to express. i see your point about tempo and time under tension, however this is one movement I wouldn’t alter too much for the sake of for the sake of time under tension. Just my 2 cents.[/quote]
Agreed.
Slow negative deadlifts are a great way to injure yourself.
Explode off the floor, lock out, put the weight down.
Repeat.
Too easy? Add weight.
Repeat.
When the weight gets heavy, you’ll move slow enough getting the weight up.
who. gives. a. fucking. shit.
a deadlift is a deadlift. pull a heavy ass weight a bunch of times and do more next week. train your hamstrings too. until you can deadlift 500+ lets not make things anymore complicated kk?
[quote]jb99 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with TUT, actually some find it more effective than just lifting heavier and with faster reps. You can still use a good amount of weight and focus on TUT, the principle behind it is not to curl 20lb dumbbells or bench 135 as slow as possible… Personally, I do TUT quite often and have found it to be effective when I have plateaued or find my progress has gone stagnant. [/quote]
Your fairly advanced though. Have you done this since the begining. (Not being a ball buster, honestly curious.)
[quote]dratner wrote:
I think if you’ve had success with hypertrophy at 5x5, then clearly you’ve had success with hypertrophy at 5x5…catch my drift? If it works for you, then it works for you. Plain and simple. Now if you’ve stalled out on a PR…my biggest question to you is what is your workout nutrition like? break it down for me. Second, I would cut down on your warm up, but that’s just my opinion. How long are you resting between work sets?[/quote]
I’m getting around 3700 - 4000 kcal/day. I usually get around 250 - 300 grams of protein a day. On my deadlift, back and chest days I try to get more carbs than on my other days… probably around 250 - 300 grams. Honestly, I don’t count my macros everyday, but I have a pretty good feel for how much I eat.
When doing deadlifts I usually rest 4 to 5 minutes between sets.
[quote]B rocK wrote:
you say you have been eating a surplus…but have only gained 5lbs in 8 weeks. now you might have gained more then that by losing fat too but if your trying to gain weight…and only gaining .625lbs/wk…you might need to bump your calories a bit higher.[/quote]
I’ve done the pound a week thing but I’ve found that the corresponding fat gain doesn’t justify the muscle gain.